Those concerns that Obamacare will make the nation’s part-time recovery even worse may be a bit overblown, according to the findings of a recent survey of more than 500 Chief Financial Officers.

The survey, conducted by Duke University and CFO Magazine, found executives expect to boost full-time hiring by nearly 1.8 percent next year. That 1.8 percent figure represents a slight increase from earlier this year and a big boost from the 0.1 percent growth in full-time hiring that was expected at the end of 2012.

The results indicate that despite worries over President Obama's health care reform law, a recent tendency on the part of companies to hire more part-time workers may be turning around; so far in 2013, companies have hired more than four times the amount of part-time workers than full-time workers, while in 2012 the opposite was true, the Wall Street Journal reported in July.

“The expected two percent growth in employment is solid, given the context of long-run shifts away from full-time employees largely because of concerns about health care reform and economic uncertainty," John Graham, a Duke finance professor and the director of the survey said of the findings in a press release.

Starting in 2015, businesses with 50 full-time workers or more will have to provide health care coverage to employees working at least 30 hours per week or face a penalty. In the wake of the law, some companies have tested cutting workers hours, while others have threatened to hire only part-time workers in an aim to avoid paying for coverage.

The result is a growing concern from conservatives and business interests that the implementation of Obamacare will exacerbate an already worrisome trend of part-time work fueling job growth -- 75 percent of the jobs created so far this year were part-time, Reuters reported last month.

The Obama administration claims the health care reform law isn’t to blame. Nine out of 10 jobs created since Obamacare became law in March 2010 are full-time, according to data released by the White House Council of Economic Advisors last week. In addition, the White House research shows that there’s no evidence Obamacare has pushed employers to cut workers’ hours to below 30 per week.

Still, nearly 60 percent of businesses have increased their proportion of part-time workers, according to the Duke/CFO Magazine survey, though just 38 percent say the change is due in part to Obamacare.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/12/companies-full-time-hiring-obamacare_n_3913313.html?utm_hp_ref=business

All of the "funding" ideas for this deabcle have disappeared.
Especially the prospect of having young folks pay for this scam almost entirely. They have refused.

King Obama has proclaimed that young people are healthier and generally need less care, so they should be willing to sacrifice the most to pay the health care cost of poor brown folks. They have refused !!

King Obama also declared that a $250k annual income is "rich".
King Obama has decreed that you are still a child until you are 26.

Obama and the very few losers that still him are irrational failures.
Please kill yourselves.

Typical HuffingtonPost bullshit. They never learn. I really got
a charge out of Trumka of the AFL-CIO and even WillyBoy Clinton
saying it needs changes. Trumka really had his head up his ass
and now he's looking at a revolt in the rank and file. Guess he
should have read the bill.

liberal logic 27 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Those concerns that Obamacare will make the
> nation’s part-time recovery even worse may be a
> bit overblown, according to the findings of a
> recent survey of more than 500 Chief Financial
> Officers.
>
> The survey, conducted by Duke University and CFO
> Magazine, found executives expect to boost
> full-time hiring by nearly 1.8 percent next year.
> That 1.8 percent figure represents a slight
> increase from earlier this year and a big boost
> from the 0.1 percent growth in full-time hiring
> that was expected at the end of 2012.
>
> The results indicate that despite worries over
> President Obama's health care reform law, a recent
> tendency on the part of companies to hire more
> part-time workers may be turning around; so far in
> 2013, companies have hired more than four times
> the amount of part-time workers than full-time
> workers, while in 2012 the opposite was true, the
> Wall Street Journal reported in July.
>
> “The expected two percent growth in employment
> is solid, given the context of long-run shifts
> away from full-time employees largely because of
> concerns about health care reform and economic
> uncertainty," John Graham, a Duke finance
> professor and the director of the survey said of
> the findings in a press release.
>
> Starting in 2015, businesses with 50 full-time
> workers or more will have to provide health care
> coverage to employees working at least 30 hours
> per week or face a penalty. In the wake of the
> law, some companies have tested cutting workers
> hours, while others have threatened to hire only
> part-time workers in an aim to avoid paying for
> coverage.
>
> The result is a growing concern from conservatives
> and business interests that the implementation of
> Obamacare will exacerbate an already worrisome
> trend of part-time work fueling job growth -- 75
> percent of the jobs created so far this year were
> part-time, Reuters reported last month.
>
> The Obama administration claims the health care
> reform law isn’t to blame. Nine out of 10 jobs
> created since Obamacare became law in March 2010
> are full-time, according to data released by the
> White House Council of Economic Advisors last
> week. In addition, the White House research shows
> that there’s no evidence Obamacare has pushed
> employers to cut workers’ hours to below 30 per
> week.
>
> Still, nearly 60 percent of businesses have
> increased their proportion of part-time workers,
> according to the Duke/CFO Magazine survey, though
> just 38 percent say the change is due in part to
> Obamacare.
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/12/companies
> -full-time-hiring-obamacare_n_3913313.html?utm_hp_
> ref=business
Attachments:

This is a perfect example of how "news" outlets like Huffington manipulate stories.

Given the disconnects and the kind of odd way that the article was written, I suspected that this survey doesn't really say what Huffington says that it does. And, big surprise, it doesn't. In fact, pretty much to the contrary. Huffington has, as typical, selectively slanted the results by not presenting the numbers they cite in context and cherry-picked some points in order to completely misrepresent the results and make it say what they'd like for it to say.

What CFO itself actually says re their own survey (from another article highlighting a second survey finding the same pessimism re Obamacare and related negative effects on hiring):

"The AICPA survey findings echo those of a Duke University/CFO Global Business Outlook Survey released yesterday: the latter found health-care regulations to be a discouragement to hiring. Fifty-nine percent of the 530 U.S. CFOs (taken as a subset of the global 1,200+ respondents) surveyed said they increased the proportion of the workforce with temporary or part-time workers. And 38 percent of those respondents cited new health-care regulations under the Affordable Care Act as part of the reason that their companies decreased full-time employment.

Uncertainty about the overall economy was also a reason that participants in the Duke/CFO survey made the choice in hiring fewer full-time workers. More than 40 percent blamed “extreme economic uncertainty” for why they would hire more temporary workers."

http://www3.cfo.com/article/2013/9/cash-flow_cpas-business-outlook-aicpa-duke-cfo-survey-affordable-care-act

Huffington simply took one element of the survey, a tiny increase in the percentage expectation for future full-time hiring from what were abysmal prior numbers, out of context and ignoring all of the rest of the negative aspects reflected in the survey, and twisted it around to write what comes off as an overall more positive article. i.e., They're comparing a crappy number to a cherry-picked absolutely terrible number to make the crappy number look better. I'm surprised that they didn't do the typical bullshit of putting it on a percentage basis so they could say a "1000% increase!" But I guess that would be too blatant even for them.

As another specific example, when they say "though just 38 percent say the change is due in part to Obamacare" what that's reflecting is a survey question asking them to rank the top three factors in 1,2,3 order (among such things as general business climate, demand, competition, etc.), so rather than a "just," in that context it actually represents a very large number. I don't even see that they directly asked about "Obamacare" so unless they interpolated that from "Federal Regulations" then that would have required people to write in Obamacare which would be even worse that they would cite it specifically.

And now this same crap has been copied all over as a talking point and will be repeated by idiots who will take it as "fact." So, when they do, now you can tell them that they're full of shit.

Actual survey results are here with a link to the actual questions:

http://www.cfosurvey.org/

No wonder. This originated at Think Progress.

New name, new branding.

fuck socialist welfare