It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How Will the Lowest Bidding Employer Feel about Providing Expensive Healthcare Benefits to the Least

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 05:14 PM
link   

How Will the Lowest Bidding Employer Feel about Providing Expensive Healthcare Benefits to the Least Preferred Job Candidate?


If you had read my treatise (now about 17 years old) entitled, "The Downward Wage Equalizing Effects of Equal Employment Opportunity," then you would understand how wage equalization works only in the downward direction.

Under equality, it is the least preferred job candidate who sets the wage standard for a job category.

Well... not exactly. It actually gets worse than that.

Under the equal opportunity and equal pay laws, wages (and other terms and conditions of employment) will be downwardly equalized to the perceived value of the least preferred job candidate per the concept of value of the lowest bidding employer for his least preferred job candidate (within job category).

In my treatise, I noted the tactics by which employers are downwardly equalizing wages. The elimination of benefits such as pensions was among many other items on my list.

So, with all this being the case, how do you think that the lowest bidding employer is going to react to having to provide very expensive healthcare benefits under Obamacare to his least preferred job candidate?

You know, the least preferred job candidate doesn't even have to secure employment to have a real impact upon wages (and other terms and conditions of employment). AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE LEAST PREFERRED JOB CANDIDATE DOES NOT EVEN HAVE TO EXIST EXCEPT IN THE MIND OF THE LOWEST BIDDING EMPLOYER.

Other tactics that employers use are downsizing and the utilization of part time workers. I included these tactics in the list of my treatise SEVENTEEN YEARS AGO. Now, it's been reported that under Obamacare, weasel employers are reducing the ranks of their employees and/or converting full-time workers to part-time status in order to escape coming under the parameters of Obamacare requirements.

To repeat what I stated in my treatise: the minimum wage laws in combination with equal opportunity and equal pay laws are a disaster. Now, you can factor in Obamacare into the equation for an even bigger disaster especially since Obama now wants to increase the minimum wage. YIKES!

Be reminded: every single employer who betrayed black and white workers equally by eliminating their jobs and offshoring those jobs touts the tag line of "We are proud to be an equal opportunity employer by choice."

To repeat what I recently stated in another post: if you want to totally destroy your empire, then all that you need do is to institute government enforced equality.

P.M.
edit on 26-4-2014 by theworldisnotenough because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-4-2014 by theworldisnotenough because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Pretty good OP.

"How Will the Lowest Bidding Employer Feel about Providing Expensive Healthcare Benefits to the Least Preferred Job Candidate?"

Short answer;

They won't/don't "feel" anything.

It's all about money in most cases.

Employers will choose employees based on qualifications that meet business needs.

They will now choose carefully and limit full time and increase part time (at least the ones required by law to provide insurance based on how many "full time" employees they have.

The PPACA has imposed those limits by "defining" a full time formula based on a 30 hour workweek.



posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 06:43 PM
link   
So its obamas fault that businesses have played around hours for there employees so they dont need to pay for benefits.

Mc donalds is having issues up here after they started importing low wage employees to offer 30 hours a week so they save on benefits and get government tax brakes.

So is obamacare affecting canada also, or maybe this was already happening before Satan passed romneycare.
edit on 26-4-2014 by dukeofjive696969 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 06:59 PM
link   
I had the same thought when the President signed the equal pay thing for women.

Its simply the way of the world, we won't raise standards, but lower them.

Another words, to equalize it, mens pay would be lowered, not womens raised.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: benrl
I had the same thought when the President signed the equal pay thing for women.

Its simply the way of the world, we won't raise standards, but lower them.

Another words, to equalize it, mens pay would be lowered, not womens raised.


While what you are saying is true, it is not complete, certainly not as a complete Economics analysis.

To put things in more formalized terms: markets will not tolerate transactions which carry a price that is higher than what the market will bear... at least, not for long.

If such transactions are, in fact, transpiring, then the markets will unleash self-correcting forces to bring price into line with value.

If the power of government is used to force the issue of equal pay by applying White male wages to other demographic groups (and I stress the word "groups" here), then the price of labor for those other groups will be above what the market will bear for those groups, and the labor market will unleash self-correcting forces to bring price into line with value.

I already mentioned a few of the self-correcting forces above: downsizing, utilizing part-time workers, and the elimination of benefits.

As a matter of fact, the labor market under equal opportunity and equal pay laws will not even tolerate the least preferred job candidate's getting more than the market will bear for his labor offering, and so wages for that guy's job category will be equalized right down to that guy's perceived value.

If any employer stands forward of the wage line by paying above prevailing wages, then that employer will attract all the least preferred job applicants and all of the equal opportunity lawsuits, so he will have to step back into line by doing what he can to downwardly equalize wages in his shop. The lower bidding employers are most eager and active to depress wages, and they keep that line moving back thus leaving other employers no choice but to keep moving back into line as well. So, you should be able to easily see how this mechanism works right down to the wage offering of the lowest bidding employer.

Minority groups don't what to know it, but members of those groups would be far better off if we all were to return to the old way of doing things, meaning: each individual, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, will have to pound the pavement and seek out the highest bidding employer for that individual's labor offerings. Tying one's wages to some other demographic group has, as side effects, resulted in the disappearance of the American middle class with a return to fiefdoms and surfs... more like slavery, if you ask me.

Dear readers: while I truly appreciate having my posts bestowed with flags and stars, I very much prefer being nominated for the Nobel Prize in Economics. I can really use the money.

P.M.




top topics
 
5

log in

join