In the case of Wal-Mart, they already had this situation many years before the ACA mandate. They already offered that level of coverage to full-time employees and kept nearly everyone part time.
Since healthcare is part of a living wage, I don't see why it should be so easy to get out of. Shifting jobs into part time should not have even been left open as a loophole - and it would have been easy to track. The ACA mandate only applies to employers with 50+ employees. This loophole does nothing but offer a complete exemption for every employer. Anyone with 50+ employees can afford this or the per-employee fine.
Presuming it was birth-without-adequate-means-of support, it'd be perfectly fine with me - more than fine - if she could go get them back if she could then demonstrate an ability to support them.
Children are people, not a toy possession for the rich. Maybe you can lose your home in bankruptcy, but not your family. That is just horrible.
Moving them in the other direction than one would normally complain about. To an easier to solve problem that still exists rather than looking at the extreme outliers.
So you're a married family with a single income from the spouse, and the spouse leaves. Gets away with never paying a dime (extremely common). You're supposed to un-have the children or somehow be skilled enough for a higher-level job? And the responsibility is only on the parent and not society? The children are not just vassals of the family - they are people too. It's a lot easier to help the children through the parent, though. You're saying that once a child exists, they have to suffer the fate of whatever happens to their parents. And that the value of your 40 hours a week is not tied to your human worth, but by whatever a company's bottom-line is. Not really a world I want to live in.
Your $250,000 figure and $14,750 was based on a middle-class income. For lower income, the figure comes closer to $9,700 per year. Somehow housing is a full 29% of the middle-class figure, but on the lower end poor people don't move when they have a child. Somehow transportation for a 2 year old is a full $200 more per year than no child. These figures are pulled from thin air, but loosely tied to consumer pricing. Children cost money, but these numbers are padded out well beyond any real-world budget scenario.
You're going to have to accept that the continuance of humanity actually requires reproduction and that you're talking about some sort of elitist eugenics.
But the liberal agenda has caused businesses to respond this way
Citation needed. Sounds like it's just businesses being businesses - chasing the bottom-line to whatever shady back-alley it leads to. Cutting the number of employees by 1/4 and raising everyone to full time that wants it costs nothing, unless you've promised benefits to the latter group and not the former group. And the only reason you promise benefits for the latter group is because the former group will be lead to believe they have a chance at that when they really never will. Completely underhanded, but somehow this is caused by a liberal agenda?
When you systematically give 30 hours per week to a larger number of part time employees just to avoid having full time employees, you really should be responsible for the fallout. There are very few of these employees that don't want full-time hours. Instead, Wal-Mart can claim that 100% of full-time employees get all these great benefits and they're a great place to work - all while only having a handful of full-time employees.
Expecting a job that takes 30 minutes to train with no skill needed to support a single parent (not sure why you had to specify mother instead of parent - I'm a widowed dad of 2 kids) and that parent's family is ludicrous.
I specified single mother just because I'm thinking of specific, real people and not statistics. That 30 minutes to train really only applies to people who have much better intelligence and education - it takes longer than that. Giving up all of your working hours to anyone should be worth the huge percentage of a human life that it is. There is no excuse to cheap out just because a job is too "lowly."
This is to fight back against forcing people into part-time status. If you have 500 part-time employees and most of them want to be full-time, you're running a scam and you deserve to be called out on it.
Easier way is to raise the minimum wage.
US Government only raises the national minimum wage. Not all areas need an increase to the minimum wage. This is just a way of tying the minimum wage to the actual cost of living. And if you locate yourself somewhere that nobody lives and everyone has to commute, then it's the employee location that matters for determining the appropriate living wage and not the company location.
How does TAXING the company help with giving them $2 more.
Because if they give them a higher wage and the employees don't need benefits, the tax goes away. This is more like having a variable national minimum wage - that varies by cost of living (Since if you don't make enough to survive in your area, you are eligible for benefits).
Should Amazon be responsible for the full-time worker who chooses to have half a dozen children he/she can't afford on their salary?
Nice straw man. Look at both Amazon and Wal-Mart employees. You'll see single mothers with one, maybe two children who need benefits to survive. In the Wal-Mart case, they keep most employees "part-time" because they offer benefits to ALL full-time employees and they don't actually want to offer it to very many. It's very rare to get 32+ hours as a Wal-Mart employee - which drops your wage even further below a 40-hour worker from the start, even at the same hourly rate.
When a tech company is doing well, their money is better spent innovating and staying ahead of the pack. When they're getting behind, it's still better spent on getting ahead.
Except so many choose to die and therefore sue. It's not like IBM doesn't have an R&D budget.
If you are really so jurassic, you can always open "data folders" like Images, Audio, Music and every other stupid useless crap you have in your computer. File Explorer is just a remnant, for compatibility... I really can't fathom why anyone could want to open a disc with it. Heck, you shouldn't even KNOW what a disc is.
That would be a better joke if they actually went ahead with their database-based file system (WinFS) from Vista development.
Even when the "month" portion is meaningless and they're actually explicitly calling 1809 the "October" update. It's still much easier to remember than when OS X releases came out.
Maybe for a comeback of passive 3D? Full 4K content for each eye with no flickering. There isn't a lot of 3D content I care about, but I literally can't buy a device to view the content I already have since I can't tolerate the flickering of active 3D.
Slashdot Mirror
In the case of Wal-Mart, they already had this situation many years before the ACA mandate. They already offered that level of coverage to full-time employees and kept nearly everyone part time.
Since healthcare is part of a living wage, I don't see why it should be so easy to get out of. Shifting jobs into part time should not have even been left open as a loophole - and it would have been easy to track. The ACA mandate only applies to employers with 50+ employees. This loophole does nothing but offer a complete exemption for every employer. Anyone with 50+ employees can afford this or the per-employee fine.
A rider is a passenger.
Maybe since Uber deals in cars, they stole the car dealer ratings system?
These jobs are meant for HS kids and college students to learn responsibility, job skills, and provide a little *extra* money, not a "living wage".
So supporting exploiting children is "better"?
Presuming it was birth-without-adequate-means-of support, it'd be perfectly fine with me - more than fine - if she could go get them back if she could then demonstrate an ability to support them.
Children are people, not a toy possession for the rich. Maybe you can lose your home in bankruptcy, but not your family. That is just horrible.
Nice with your moving the goalposts.
Moving them in the other direction than one would normally complain about. To an easier to solve problem that still exists rather than looking at the extreme outliers.
So you're a married family with a single income from the spouse, and the spouse leaves. Gets away with never paying a dime (extremely common). You're supposed to un-have the children or somehow be skilled enough for a higher-level job? And the responsibility is only on the parent and not society? The children are not just vassals of the family - they are people too. It's a lot easier to help the children through the parent, though. You're saying that once a child exists, they have to suffer the fate of whatever happens to their parents. And that the value of your 40 hours a week is not tied to your human worth, but by whatever a company's bottom-line is. Not really a world I want to live in.
Your $250,000 figure and $14,750 was based on a middle-class income. For lower income, the figure comes closer to $9,700 per year. Somehow housing is a full 29% of the middle-class figure, but on the lower end poor people don't move when they have a child. Somehow transportation for a 2 year old is a full $200 more per year than no child. These figures are pulled from thin air, but loosely tied to consumer pricing. Children cost money, but these numbers are padded out well beyond any real-world budget scenario.
You're going to have to accept that the continuance of humanity actually requires reproduction and that you're talking about some sort of elitist eugenics.
But the liberal agenda has caused businesses to respond this way
Citation needed. Sounds like it's just businesses being businesses - chasing the bottom-line to whatever shady back-alley it leads to. Cutting the number of employees by 1/4 and raising everyone to full time that wants it costs nothing, unless you've promised benefits to the latter group and not the former group. And the only reason you promise benefits for the latter group is because the former group will be lead to believe they have a chance at that when they really never will. Completely underhanded, but somehow this is caused by a liberal agenda?
When you systematically give 30 hours per week to a larger number of part time employees just to avoid having full time employees, you really should be responsible for the fallout. There are very few of these employees that don't want full-time hours. Instead, Wal-Mart can claim that 100% of full-time employees get all these great benefits and they're a great place to work - all while only having a handful of full-time employees.
Expecting a job that takes 30 minutes to train with no skill needed to support a single parent (not sure why you had to specify mother instead of parent - I'm a widowed dad of 2 kids) and that parent's family is ludicrous.
I specified single mother just because I'm thinking of specific, real people and not statistics. That 30 minutes to train really only applies to people who have much better intelligence and education - it takes longer than that. Giving up all of your working hours to anyone should be worth the huge percentage of a human life that it is. There is no excuse to cheap out just because a job is too "lowly."
This is to fight back against forcing people into part-time status. If you have 500 part-time employees and most of them want to be full-time, you're running a scam and you deserve to be called out on it.
Easier way is to raise the minimum wage.
US Government only raises the national minimum wage. Not all areas need an increase to the minimum wage. This is just a way of tying the minimum wage to the actual cost of living. And if you locate yourself somewhere that nobody lives and everyone has to commute, then it's the employee location that matters for determining the appropriate living wage and not the company location.
How does TAXING the company help with giving them $2 more.
Because if they give them a higher wage and the employees don't need benefits, the tax goes away. This is more like having a variable national minimum wage - that varies by cost of living (Since if you don't make enough to survive in your area, you are eligible for benefits).
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Looks like he wasn't making a lot before - but his wife also worked a lot too. But a book deal really boosted his income in the last few years.
Doesn't look like that's included anyway. How many retired people working part time do you know that are on SNAP or WIC?
Should Amazon be responsible for the full-time worker who chooses to have half a dozen children he/she can't afford on their salary?
Nice straw man. Look at both Amazon and Wal-Mart employees. You'll see single mothers with one, maybe two children who need benefits to survive. In the Wal-Mart case, they keep most employees "part-time" because they offer benefits to ALL full-time employees and they don't actually want to offer it to very many. It's very rare to get 32+ hours as a Wal-Mart employee - which drops your wage even further below a 40-hour worker from the start, even at the same hourly rate.
It's called a Lauer lock
More standing than people who don't even use it and have no reason to complain at all.
The conclusion is not necessarily news, but it's good to finally have it scientifically validated.
When a tech company is doing well, their money is better spent innovating and staying ahead of the pack. When they're getting behind, it's still better spent on getting ahead.
Except so many choose to die and therefore sue. It's not like IBM doesn't have an R&D budget.
Well it should be - if an immortal company can own one.
If you are really so jurassic, you can always open "data folders" like Images, Audio, Music and every other stupid useless crap you have in your computer. File Explorer is just a remnant, for compatibility... I really can't fathom why anyone could want to open a disc with it. Heck, you shouldn't even KNOW what a disc is.
That would be a better joke if they actually went ahead with their database-based file system (WinFS) from Vista development.
Even when the "month" portion is meaningless and they're actually explicitly calling 1809 the "October" update. It's still much easier to remember than when OS X releases came out.
Dark theme is good for one thing - OLED. And in that case, you don't really need to worry about how it looks so much as the battery savings.
It's because the term 4K was already used in digital cinema, not for bigger numbers. In digital cinema, it IS called 2K for the lower resolution.
Well what if you want to see pubic hair mites?
Maybe for a comeback of passive 3D? Full 4K content for each eye with no flickering. There isn't a lot of 3D content I care about, but I literally can't buy a device to view the content I already have since I can't tolerate the flickering of active 3D.