U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Easter!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-10-2011, 02:11 PM
 
Location: Tyler, TX
15,194 posts, read 17,697,396 times
Reputation: 7981

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by juppiter View Post
If the government provided free health insurance to all Americans, employers would have a LOT of money to hire more workers.
That's debatable, but it's irrelevant so there's no point in debating it.

Get this through your head - businesses don't exist for the purpose of hiring people. Access to more capital does not equal hiring more employees. Employees will be hired IF, and ONLY IF the company NEEDS more employees.

Got it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-10-2011, 02:13 PM
 
Location: southern california
55,237 posts, read 72,446,444 times
Reputation: 47456
the entire concept of "i dont understand why its not free" needs healing.
we are the government. somebody has to pay for the health care. it needs to be more cost effective and government is never never the people best at cost reductions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2011, 02:16 PM
 
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ
16,116 posts, read 20,161,295 times
Reputation: 8204
Quote:
Originally Posted by juppiter View Post
I get health insurance benefits through my employer, as do most Americans with health insurance. The total premium per month is about $400, of which I pay $60 and my employer picks up the rest of the tab.

Where I work, we are woefully understaffed and have been on mandatory overtime for a while now.

I think they'd hire more people if they weren't paying $340 per month per employee (and way more for those with family coverage) on health insurance.

If the government provided free health insurance to all Americans, employers would have a LOT of money to hire more workers.

I will never understand why "Medicare For All," a majority opinion among Americans, hasn't been adopted yet. Well I understand why, but if I think about it too long it makes me sick.
a good argument for Socialized medicine. I too have maxed out overtime in order to avoid hiring for the same reasons. Health care and Pension. Why should the employer be responsible for those, in most industrialized countries that is what the government is for.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2011, 02:50 PM
 
6,774 posts, read 6,861,354 times
Reputation: 6942
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger View Post
That's debatable, but it's irrelevant so there's no point in debating it.

Get this through your head - businesses don't exist for the purpose of hiring people. Access to more capital does not equal hiring more employees. Employees will be hired IF, and ONLY IF the company NEEDS more employees.

Got it?
Many companies do need more employees, but can't afford to hire them due to the high cost of health benefits, they end up forcing overtime on current employees, and hiring a lot of part time people so they don't have to pay benefits, when this country is in desperate need of full time, family supporting jobs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2011, 02:59 PM
 
Location: Tampa Florida
22,243 posts, read 14,743,045 times
Reputation: 4583
Quote:
Originally Posted by detshen View Post
Many companies do need more employees, but can't afford to hire them due to the high cost of health benefits, they end up forcing overtime on current employees, and hiring a lot of part time people so they don't have to pay benefits, when this country is in desperate need of full time, family supporting jobs.
Employers do not have to pay for HC Ins. They have been cutting that back for decades. The don't hire because they are not confident that the demand will support it. They are using part time and overtime to fill in the meager demand ups, then cut that back on the downs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2011, 04:14 PM
 
5,532 posts, read 5,719,466 times
Reputation: 3146
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger View Post
That's debatable, but it's irrelevant so there's no point in debating it.

Get this through your head - businesses don't exist for the purpose of hiring people. Access to more capital does not equal hiring more employees. Employees will be hired IF, and ONLY IF the company NEEDS more employees.

Got it?
Yes, we got it. However -
The same employers outsource much of their work internationally and domestically to sub-contractors. I can tell you that they pay tons of money to these contractors. If they didn't have the health insurance burden, maybe they would be more inclined to hire. Just maybe...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2011, 05:01 PM
 
6,774 posts, read 6,861,354 times
Reputation: 6942
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob View Post
Employers do not have to pay for HC Ins. They have been cutting that back for decades. The don't hire because they are not confident that the demand will support it. They are using part time and overtime to fill in the meager demand ups, then cut that back on the downs.
They DO have to pay for health care for ALL full time employees if they cover it for some, that's why they keep hiring part time workers, and overusing overtime, it's so they don't have to pay benefits, period. I worked in HR for years this is exactly what happens, most managers would prefer giving a good job to one dependable, qualified worker, but they aren't allowed to because the benefits cost too much.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2011, 05:07 PM
 
Location: Tyler, TX
15,194 posts, read 17,697,396 times
Reputation: 7981
Quote:
Originally Posted by detshen View Post
Many companies do need more employees, but can't afford to hire them due to the high cost of health benefits, they end up forcing overtime on current employees, and hiring a lot of part time people so they don't have to pay benefits
If they need more employees, then the demand is obviously there to hire them, and they will.

A company can't "force" overtime on an employee, and my experience has been that most employees want overtime, so they can earn more money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by detshen View Post
this country is in desperate need of full time, family supporting jobs.
That's true, but wishing for them doesn't generate the demand that's required in order for those positions to be created.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2011, 05:11 PM
 
6,774 posts, read 6,861,354 times
Reputation: 6942
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger View Post
If they need more employees, then the demand is obviously there to hire them, and they will.

A company can't "force" overtime on an employee, and my experience has been that most employees want overtime, so they can earn more money.



That's true, but wishing for them doesn't generate the demand that's required in order for those positions to be created.

Yes, they can require overtime as long as they pay for it. In many cases the demand is there, but the benefit costs keep emloyers from hiring full time workers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2011, 05:15 PM
 
Location: Tyler, TX
15,194 posts, read 17,697,396 times
Reputation: 7981
Quote:
Originally Posted by oberon_1 View Post
Yes, we got it. However -
The same employers outsource much of their work internationally and domestically to sub-contractors. I can tell you that they pay tons of money to these contractors. If they didn't have the health insurance burden, maybe they would be more inclined to hire. Just maybe...
Insurance is a part of it - a small part of it. It's the overall cost of labor that's the root of the offshoring. Technology has also greatly contributed to it by erasing many of the barriers that kept it from happening in the past.

Labor has always been cheaper in other countries. Take the stereotypical example of a call center in India. You didn't see them twenty years ago. Was that because labor costs in the U.S. and India were comparable? No. It was because intercontinental telephone calls were friggin' expensive, and any savings realized in labor would have been offset by communication costs. Now we have the Internet and VoIP, and millions of intercontinental calls can be made monthly for the cost of a good Internet connection at either end.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top