ObamaCare, the Federal Finances, and the Upcoming Labor Shortage

As I write this, President Obama, Congress, and the Senate are negotiating a budget deal that would keep the federal government paying its bills after October 1, 2013. Politics aside, it's odd that the politicians would continue to get paid on time while those serving in the military as still required to report for duty and perform their normal duties but don't get paid--they get an IOU. Try buying groceries or gas with that. But I digress...

Much has been mentioned of Obamacare, a/k/a the Affordable Care Act. Let's clear up one point of confusion: it's the same thing. Public approval of it tends to be different depending on what it's called (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/26/president-obama-approval_n_3998516.html). Even the source of the polls tends to make a distinct difference (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html). I'll end this thought by saying this: it's hard to know how it'll really effect all Americans until it becomes fully implemented, and while mandatory insurance has proven unpopular in several polls, many other provisions (allowing college students to stay on parents' insurance longer, not being allowed to discriminate based on age or preexisting conditions, etc.) tend to be popular across party lines.

Many have said that costs will go up, especially when commenting on Republican blogs (see "Positively Republican" on Facebook). This is true, but health care has increased in cost every year I've been alive. I suggest that more be done to investigate the cause of rising prices both in past years and 2014 without looking at 2014 increases by themselves.

Finally, in an earlier blog, I commented about the increase of part-time workers. Today I looked into the Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t09.htm). It shows that, seasonally adjusted, part-time workers are increasing while full-time employees are relatively stagnant. Some will say this is because Obamacare (a/k/a Affordable Care Act) forces employers to pay health insurance to those with over 50 employees who work over 32 hours a week. Note those exceptions: both over 50 employees and working over 32 hours a week; thus, many small employers are exempt because they don't have 50 employees. Those who do can choose to pay the penalty inherent with not offering health insurance, but there's a risk.

The risk is that, with the increase of part-time employees without a simultaneous increase in the labor force, there will be a supply constraint. Employers will need more part-time employees if they don't hire full-time employees, and they'll need either full-time employees to add a part-time job, the existing full-time employees to work more, or lure part-time employees from other jobs. All options are inflationary because of the limited number of part-time employees in the labor pool.

This will truly be a spectacle of economic forces as supply and demand of the labor force take effect. 

The Law of Unintended Consequences: Unemployment....?

http://www.ridersny.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/dollar-sign-image.jpg
The unemployment rate remains at or close to 7%, several years into the nation's "recovery" after the Lehman Brothers' bankruptcy and subsequent financial events that commenced five years ago. Still, with all the unemployment, I see many lower-wage jobs (predominantly restaurant and retail) going unfulfilled. Why is this?

Some will say that there's little benefit to some because the federal subsidies for not working are greater than the monetary reward (paychecks) for working. So I did some research:

1) In Wisconsin, the average food stamp benefit for one person is $116.50/week (http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/18SNAPavg$PP.htm). That's $16/day, which isn't too bad...

2) The maximum unemployment is $363/month (http://www.wisconsinunemployment.us/benefits). I don't know where to live on that amount.

Together that amount is about $800/month. At $8/hour, 40 hours a week, gross pay is $1280. Because this would maximize any tax incentives to work, actual amount paid would be more at some point (tax refunds, etc.), but there'd be an immediate tax deduction of approx 10% (FICA, etc.). Still, that's at least $1150, or $350 more each month by working. Anyone who can't see the difference in an extra $80/week hasn't seen how far that can go.

The "trap" comes in if there are any unexpected financial hardships, like needing new clothes, prescriptions, or having to pay for drug tests up front to maintain state benefits (Florida). Then only a careful financial planner could be prepared for the future.

More following. I wanted to open a series of columns of unintended consequences with opening thoughts. Comments are welcome.

Unintended Consequences, Pt 1: Labor Day

On this Labor Day, I find myself working my 2nd job (as is often the case on Mondays), continuing the second job I've had for over a year. Most weeks, between both jobs, I work over 60 hours a week (sometimes over 70).

Labor Day is a holiday to remember America's workers and all they do for America has a whole. My experience reminds me that, while labor unions brought us the weekend, minimum wage, and safe working conditions (the last of which I consider the most important--time off is unimportant if you're hurt from an on-the-job injury), regulations have consequences.

The minimum wage, while historically low relative to the last time it was changed and inflation thereafter, provides a basic minimum amount to be paid. Raising it raises costs for a business and thus encourages efficiency (to minimize labor and thus maintain total labor costs)(http://www.triplepundit.com/2013/08/mcdonalds-15-minimum-wage/). Raising the minimum wage also discourages workers from improving themselves by attaining additional skills which would make them more valuable to their employers.

This wraps into "Obamacare", a/k/a the Affordable Care Act. Should the government force employers to buy insurance and/or require individuals to have insurance? The Supreme Court says "yes"; it's a tax. However, this gives both sides leverage to make improvements--the individual can improve themselves and move to a job with better insurance and the employer can offer better insurance in an attempt to recruit better employees. In each case, each can cut insurance quality to the minimum required, knowing that costs are passed on to customers and to try to maintain profitability.

Capitalism is evolving. Clearly we have more regulation than at other times in history, but we also have longer life expectancies and lead healthier lives. Regulation is good, but going too far (my favorite example is the myriad of regulations that go into every car sold in the US; http://www.caranddriver.com/features/the-cafe-numbers-game-making-sense-of-the-new-fuel-economy-regulations-feature) costs jobs and money. The key is balance, and that's sometime we all need to work toward.