Is Obamacare Pushing People Into Part-Time Work?

Investors Business DailyInvestors Business DailyThe White House says Obamacare isn’t a job killer. But what if it’s not killing jobs so much as pushing workers into part-time employment? Jed Graham at Investors Business Daily points to some data in the Current Population Survey which suggests that's exactly what's going on: 

Even as the number of people working has grown by 2.2 million, or 1.6%, over the past year, the number clocking 30 to 34 hours a week has shrunk.

In the second quarter, the number of workers putting in 30 to 34 hours at their primary job fell by a monthly average of 146,500, or 1.4%, from a year earlier.

By comparison, the number working 25-29 hours per week in their primary job rose by 119,000, or 2.7%.

This oddity has an obvious explanation: ObamaCare's employer mandate applies only to full-time workers, which the law defines as 30 hours per week.

What appears to be happening, in other words, is a threshold effect. People hovering around the borderline—just above 30 hours—are seeing their hours capped. And new positions that might have offered 32 or 34 hours of work in the past are being created as 25-29 hour a week jobs. 

Some additional anecdotal evidence that the law is making it harder for workers to get more hours on the job comes from Greg Mankiw's blog. Mankiw, the chairman of the Harvard economics department, posted a letter from a college instructor today reporting that part time faculty are seeing their hours capped in order to avoid the law's penalties for not offering insurance coverage. An excerpt:

With the implementation of the ACA (Affordable Care Act) these institutions are giving notification to their part-time faulty that their individual teaching schedules will now be limited to three sections. At the college this will likely result in the cancellation of 20-25% of the class sections in economics, and I would assume other areas will have a similar result. The students are not fully aware of the situation and many will be surprised that their desire to get a college education is now being impacted by the need to avoid the full implementation of the ACA.

The part-time push may even be affecting people working directly to implement the law. As the J.D. Tuccille noted last week, one of California's Obamacare call centers reportedly indicated it would provide employees full-time jobs with benefits—and then decided that half the jobs would be part time, with no health benefits. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Pro Libertate||

    See, this is where the GOP is missing a huge opportunity. "The Democrats want everyone to be poor. We want everyone to have the opportunity to be rich."

    Of course, they'd actually have to become a whole lot more supportive of limited government, low taxation, and free markets to actually say that to any real effect, which is why that's not worked so well for them. At least, not consistently.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    That's what drove our economy into the ditch in the first place!

  • Pro Libertate||

    Yes, that claims rings hollow the longer Obama is around, doesn't it?

  • Paul.||

    He proved it was true!

  • pmains||

    I thought it was because they were drinking slurpees.

  • Inigo M.||

    I thought it was those horrible predatory lending bankers who were literally forcing people to take out mortgages on homes they clearly could not afford. They were holding guns to people's heads and saying, "You'll live in a mansion or else!"

  • Lady Bertrum||

    It's not good enough to just say limited government, low taxes and free markets. They need to explain what that looks like - explain what it means tirelessly. Most Americans have little imagination and that's why Reagan was so good. He explained. Modern Republicans cannot explain because most of them don't really believe themselves.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -they'd actually have to become a whole lot more supportive of limited government, low taxation, and free markets

    Are you talking about the party whose standard bearer said

    -Regulation is essential. You can’t have a free market work if you don’t have regulation.

    For your own health, don't hold your breath!

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Regulation is essential. You can’t have a free market work if you don’t have regulation.

    Well, that is correct in a sense. Even if markets are being regulated by courts through contracts, there are all sorts of markets that work very poorly absent a consistent and well thought-out regulatory framework. Assigning property rights and arbitrating disputes, especially at a high level or when third parties are impacted, requires some level of regulation.

  • ||

    Except you know they meant Government regulation.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Aren't courts part of government?

    I know what you mean -- that these folks prefer the sort of "regulations" that *restrict* the terms under which people can contract or create things for aesthetic or otherwise silly reasons. In truth, however, there are plenty of ways that markets are regulated which make perfect sense under the libertarian conception of a well-regulated market and Lockean homesteaded property rights.

  • ||

    Aren't courts part of government?

    Not necessarily.

    Private arbitration occurs on a regular basis.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Romney was a horrible candidate. No one should try defending anything that fool said.

  • Sevo||

    "Well, that is correct in a sense"

    Dope, anyone?

  • fish||

    The part-time push may even be affecting people working directly to implement the law. As the J.D. Tuccille noted last week, one of California's Obamacare call centers reportedly indicated it would provide employees full-time jobs with benefits—and then decided that half the jobs would be part time, with no health benefits.

    THIS SHIT WRITES ITSELF.....!

    Gold Jerry....pure comedy gold!

  • MJGreen||

    Why do they call it Obamacare? It's not Obama, it's not care. They should call it Mandated Insurance with Subsidies Program.

  • Boba Fudd||

    +1 Seinfeld stand-up routine

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

    -1 Kenny Bania.

  • R C Dean||

    It's not Obama, it's not care.

    But it is Obama, and its not care. Hence, the "ObamaCare" moniker was hung on this abomination to remind people of who owns it, and why they should curse his name.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Why do they call it Obamacare?

    Because the more accurate Obama-don't-care doesn't roll of the tongue as well.

  • Finrod||

    Because the FCC frowns on saying Obama-fucking-you-up-the-ass-with-no-lube over the public airwaves.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    I am glad there are facts to back this up, but my first response to the question was, "um, duh?" Is there any reason anyone out there had to think this WOULDN'T happen?

  • Almanian!||

    This is a COMPLETE SURPRISE! Complete. Surprise.

    Whoa - who coulda guessed?

  • Inigo M.||

    It probably is a complete surprise to most of the people who designed the damned thing. It's typical for their team to never imagine any unintended consequences to their meddling. And when they are faced with the reality of unintended consequences, they don't worry about them because social justice or fairness is all about motives, not results.

  • ||

    Well, there is the fact that there are a lot of mindless sheep out there who swallow anything their TEAM feeds them. And TEAM BLUE was feeding all goodness and rainbows all the time.

  • John||

    They have to Episiarch. Liberalism really is an insidious trap. If you believe in the super natural it is good evidence for the devil. Think about. Liberalism offers weak willed people an easy way to feel good about themselves. All you have to do is believe in the ideology and you are immediately given license to feel morally superior and have a sense of personal worth. But once you do that, the trap is sprung. You now equate your morality and personal worth with your politics. So changing your mind means giving up your whole sense of self. So these people never change their minds. They can't. They will believe anything and ignore any fact to keep from losing their sense of self worth and morality.

  • ||

    That's actually a very interesting way to put it, John. And the trap isn't just equating your own morality and personal worth with your politics, but also joining a TEAM that will turn on you viciously if you deviate at all. So even if you were able to decouple the morality from the politics and step back, you're going to lose most of your friends.

  • Pro Libertate||

    My wife was very impressed by something I told her once about liberalism, organic food, etc. being more about status than anything else. Those things are about setting yourself apart from other people, being in a superior class.

    So it's not just a team issue, it's also about making you feel superior to other people.

  • PapayaSF||

    This is all true, and it's a huge problem faced by non-leftists. Leftists have managed to define their views as moral and cool and hip and obligatory for all thinking people with hearts, so libertarians and conservatives and Republicans are shunned by anyone who wants to "fit in" and "belong."

  • SQRLSY One||

    If you don’t support my policy preferences for Government Almighty to make all of your charity choices for you, very gently and compassionately asserted under the point of a billy club and a jail, then you are clearly an unfeeling moral inferior to my oh-so-much-more-compassionate self, who eminently DESERVES to have my fair share of self-esteem! I will VOTE my moral superiority over you!!! Y’all troglodytes GO AWAY now!

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Yep, it's Puritanism with government replacing God, Edumacation replacing the church and the people filling in for Jesus.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Liberals think their views are moral and cool and hip and such, but that's true for conservatives in their crowds as well (remember all the 'Real Americans' talk from people like Sarah Palin). It's true for libertarians as well, it's just that we don't have nearly the carve out of social institutions catering to us that 'the big two' do.

  • PapayaSF||

    Bo, true, everyone considers themselves "moral," but conservatives rarely think of themselves as hip or cool, and very few people become libertarians to join the "in" crowd. Those are pretty exclusively left/progressive traits these days.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Conservatives think of themselves as Owners of the Proper Morality though. We got the fucking Puritans and they became the present day GOP. Getting lectured by the Right on how to live is probably worse than the point or two in higher taxes the Left imposes.

    Sure, the hipsters are their modern day opponents. So what? Both parties suck.

    I wish the LP could get its act together and burst through the 1% barrier.

  • lap83||

    Getting lectured by the right on how to live is not nearly as bad as getting lectured by the left on how we shouldn't complain as much while getting screwed. But maybe that's just me.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Getting lectured by the Right on how to live is probably worse than the point or two in higher taxes the Left imposes.

    Your fucking proglodyte buddies are the ones telling people how to live, asshole.

    With all kinds of pseudo-religious dietary, health, relationship and work restrictions.

  • PapayaSF||

    the point or two in higher taxes the Left imposes

    Look at the states run by the left and tell me their taxes are a "point or two" higher.

  • ||

    Oh look, Palin's Asshole defending the Left. What. A. Shock.

  • lap83||

    I find liberals to have more of a pseudo-morality because they don't actually care about people. They don't trust people, don't want them to succeed, hate anyone who opposes them, and don't care who suffers from their policies.

  • Damned Fool||

    ^This. Especially on college campuses, especially in election years. I should not have mentioned libertarianism last October- I wasn't able to deal with half of my dorm floor on a normal basis after that.

  • Damned Fool||

    In response to PapayaSF.

  • Not Sure||

    Been there.

  • Calidissident||

    I don't really like to talk politics with friends*, but it has come up occasionally (especially last year around the time of the election). I've managed to avoid hatred or anything like that, but IMO it helps that I a) didn't support Romney and am a libertarian rather than a conservative Republican and b) I'm not particularly combative unless I need or want to be, neither of which applied in these instances.

    *I do have a liberal friend and a couple conservative friends who I can comfortably and reasonably discuss politics with from time to time. But for most of my friends, it's not really something they usually bring up, and it's not something I wanna bring up either in most cases

  • Inigo M.||

    I used to think that as well. (I was a leftist as a youngster.) But as you get older and wiser, you realize that just because someone is NOT for, say, banning all fossil fuel use, doesn't mean they want a polluted environment. Or, if someone wants to end the WOD and legalize drugs, it doesn't mean they want everyone to start using heroin or something. The problem with leftists is simple-minded, childish thought processes.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -Liberalism offers weak willed people an easy way to feel good about themselves. All you have to do is believe in the ideology and you are immediately given license to feel morally superior and have a sense of personal worth.

    This applies to nearly any ideology I would say.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    John is a conservative. The GOP is above moral superiority and self righteousness.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I think John's point that many liberals try to wrap themselves, and their ideology, into the mantle of cool, hip, caring and intelligent. But I think conservatives do a very similar thing. If you listen to enough conservative media you repeatedly hear that conservatives own patriotism, responsibility, and morality. Libertarians do something similar too, insisting they are the few that are principled and not duped.

    I think it would be quite difficult to not fall into this to some extent. It would be hard to think your political beliefs come from somewhere outside of intelligence and morality.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I'm not cool, hip, caring or intelligent; I just want to be left alone to live a peaceful life.

    And anyone who thinks it's cool, hip, caring, or intelligent to put a fucking gun to my head to further their demented social engineering agenda should suck deep on the business end of a shotgun.

  • robc||

    Libertarians do something similar too, insisting they are the few that are principled

    The phrase "party of principle" comes from a republican, he was insulting Libertarians.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    I think John's point that many liberals try to wrap themselves, and their ideology, into the mantle of cool, hip, caring and intelligent. But I think conservatives do a very similar thing. If you listen to enough conservative media you repeatedly hear that conservatives own patriotism, responsibility, and morality. Libertarians do something similar too, insisting they are the few that are principled and not duped.

    You're mistaking moral axes for group cohesion/identity. As Arnold Kling puts it, conservatives construe themselves on a civilized-barbarism spectrum, progs on an oppressed-oppressor spectrum, and libertarians on a freedom-tyranny spectrum -- but conservatives and libertarians are much less likely to reject a liberal as a friend or association as a result of politics. The extent to which politics is a group component is (at least in the context of American politics) more or less the province of progressives.

    A libertarian or conservative might scream at you a little for having "wrong" views, but they do not see it as an imposition upon themselves or their social group to have friends outside their political persuasion. Progs, OTOH, have that viewpoint -- that if they do have conservative or libertarian friends, they must somehow justify this or chalk this up to their own generous nature. They are doing you a favor by being your friend -- that, or you are funny and cool enough to win points where you lose them for political stylings.

  • lap83||

    Exactly. Which is why the progs' idea that they are the more "tolerant" group is so laughable. They just don't realize how many people are silently putting up with them while they spout their mad rantings at work/school/etc.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I agree that progressives can 'come off' worse because of their incessant invocation of tolerance while they are attacking the intelligence and goodwill of anyone who disagrees with them.

  • Calidissident||

    IT, I think you make some good points. I'd describe it more as a continuum, with progressives most likely to engage in the behavior you describe, followed by conservatives, and then libertarians (though probably partly due to the fact that since there are fewer libertarians than liberals or conservatives, a libertarian who refuses to be friends with any non-libertarians is usually really limiting his pool of potential friends). Of course this is not true for everyone in any of those groups.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    I think it's mostly a function of it being so much easier to avoid sympathetic expositing of conservative and libertarian viewpoints. If you have a television, read books, or engage media at any level you will come into contact with some sympathetic progressive narrative. In contrast, there are plenty of ways to avoid conservative and libertarian arguments -- in fact, many progressives pat themselves on the back for being willing to watch a conservative or libertarian be interviewed or excerped on a progressive show.

    The result of this is that conservatives and libertarians can understand progressives better than the converse, and understand that the ideology does not come from an exclusively terrible place. They generally understand "low church" and "high church" divisions of the progressive movement to a greater extent than progs, and thus can understand how their progressive friends' positive characteristics or sense of justice leads to their erroneous conclusions, even while disagreeing.

    Presumably if conservatism or libertarianism were similarly situated in society as progressives, they too would lack understanding of other ideologies.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I have read research which claimed something similar to this. I'm not sure I buy it, at least not with 'hardcore' conservatives (or, alas, even with libertarians). More than ever we live in a media environment which offers alternatives to various niches. It's quite easy to sit in front of conservative or libertarian news and entertainment sources all day if one wishes, and the hardcore of both groups tend to do so in my experience.

    Most of the conservatives I know are absolutely convinced that liberals are people with no moral compass, no sense of duty to their country and unable to believe in anything other than themselves (just as, of course, most liberals I know are convinced that anyone who is not a liberal is a cold-hearted racist).

    As to how most libertarians think of progressives, well, read the comments here. It's pretty blistering.

    I am not faulting here, like I said it is hard to be very faithful to certain moral precepts and like or admire people who live and think contrary to them.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    The hardcore among all three groups are always going to be... more zealous than the average, heh. I would still bet that, sheerly as a result of cultural heft, your average conservative or libertarian could emulate a prog in a chat room better than a prog could emulate a conservative or libertarian.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -in a survey of 2,000 Americans, Haidt found that self-described liberals, especially those who called themselves “very liberal,” were worse at predicting the moral judgments of moderates and conservatives than moderates and conservatives were at predicting the moral judgments of liberals. Liberals don’t understand conservative values. And they can’t recognize this failing, because they’re so convinced of their rationality, open-mindedness and enlightenment.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03.....d=all&_r=0

  • General Butt Naked||

    As to how most libertarians think of progressives, well, read the comments here. It's pretty blistering.

    Are you fucking stupid, minge?

    Don't answer, that was rhetorical.

    Oh my, we're mean to the well-meaning liberals who just want to make the world a better place.

    What-the-fuck-ever dood...

    Anyone, and I do mean anyone, who would fucking kill me for not playing along with their little do-gooder schemes deserves a lot more than a harsh comment on the internet.

    If you can't see that equating leaving people alone with political philosophies inherently based upon violence is equivocation, then you're either irredeemably stupid or being intentionally obtuse.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -If you can't see that equating leaving people alone with political philosophies inherently based upon violence is equivocation, then you're either irredeemably stupid or being intentionally obtuse.

    I appreciate you helping my case!

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -but conservatives and libertarians are much less likely to reject a liberal as a friend or association as a result of politics

    The commentariat here notwithstanding?

    Usually the worst, most uncivil attacks I've seen here have been by libertarians and conservatives on any 'progtard' that espouses their view.

  • Damned Fool||

    Yeah, but the progs here (Tony and PB) are compulsively dishonest despite our constant attempts to educate them.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -despite our constant attempts to educate them.

    Perhaps this was written sarcastically, but if not I think it illustrates my point brilliantly.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    That's part of the "yelling" I mentioned. On a libertarian board, it cycles depending on the party in power: in the Bush years, you were more likely to be yelled at for being a Bush conservative than a Kerry liberal.

    I bet that if real life Shreek were a car enthusiast or whatever, or if he was just a dumbass on politics, most of the commentariat could get along with him in real life.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    On a recent thread he asked about whether to purchase a certain firearm for a certain price. More than one response invited him to kill himself with the firearm.

  • Calidissident||

    You're pretty new here (I am too relatively, I've only been here about a year), the longer you stay here, the more you understand why people respond to him the way they do, even when it he isn't hostile (not that I would ever tell anyone, with very few exceptions, to go kill themselves)

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    New, but I can see how he's annoying. Having said that, yes, I would not tell someone that.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Heh, that's awesome.

    That's the internet for you: if you're not asked to kill yourself or fuck yourself, then you haven't been around long enough.

  • Calidissident||

    Yeah, Reason certainly isn't the first site where someone's been told to go kill themselves

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Yes, but that is my point. Libertarians are much like other groups in this way.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    In that specific characteristic (hardcore libertarian chatroom vs. hardcore prog chatroom), yes. In general? Not really. When I was conservative and later classically liberal, I didn't feel a need to justify my choice of friends, be they prog, conservative, or libertarian. I have heard all three groups bitch about the morality of others in other groups, but progs are the only ones who handwring about whether they should have friends in the other two groups in the first place (and if so, how much is too much contact with those in the shunned groups).

    It is very similar to some religions' malus on having either your closest friends or your romantic partners be of a different tradition.

  • Calidissident||

    I think this difference is even more pronounced in the dating arena

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I wonder if our different experiences and observations might derive from the fact that you came to libertarianism from the right while I came from the left?

  • Calidissident||

    Yeah, I wouldn't claim that libertarians are super-humans immune to flaws that other people and groups have. But I nonetheless do think that Immaculate Trouser is generally correct in that I do think libertarians are more likely to disagree with someone politically without thinking they're a bad person because of it, and are more likely to understand the motivations of other people's political beliefs, than liberals (and in my opinion conservatives as well) are. That doesn't mean that a lot of libertarians are not incapable of this.

  • Nazdrakke||

    I imagine, Cali, that if nothing else having an ideology or personal philosophy that is in conflict with 90% plus of the world around you forces one to actively think a little more. Less autopilot.

  • Calidissident||

    I would agree with that. Bo, I'm not (and I don't think IT is either) basing my assertions on a belief that libertarians are inherently superior people

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Correct. It's not really about being a better person; just the opportunities you have to be exposed to certain ideas and some characteristics of ideology, as well. Certain strains of progressivism have emphasized "making the personal political", conservatism has generally been comfortable outsourcing such aspects of society to religion, and libertarianism (outside perhaps Objectivism) has an ideological preference for separating views on society and government.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Yes, but that is my point. Libertarians are much like other groups in this way.

    Uh-oh. You're following the Tulpa trajectory. Get ready for rough waters ahead (though I see GBN above has labeled you an MNG sockpuppet already -- how original).

    The fact that the only liberals left here are the trolls is TOTALLY not the fault of H+R recently treating all non-libertarians here like dog crap, causing the honest ones to leave.

    This place has veered ever closer to becoming a libertarian version of Daily Kos since registration and the hiring of incredibly intellectually dishonest writers.

  • ||

    You are fucking retarded Tulpa.

    One minute you're bitching about how Reason has gotten too soft and squishy on Democrats and too darn hard on the Republicans. The next you're bitching about HyR running off honest liberals. Give me a break.

    Nevermind that in my 5 years of posting I've yet to see an "honest" liberal post here (using a myriad of logical fallacies and then accusing all libertarians of being Bush lovers or closet Republicans IS NOT HONEST).

  • Finrod||

    So what you're really saying here is that liberalism really is just an older and more clever version of $cientology.

  • Faceless Commenter||

    Hey, you want to see the other side screaming "I told you so"? I lurked this up at Daily Kos:

    I'm about to pay $8665 a year for crappy high deductible insurance in NYS

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/.....ce-in-NYS#

    It actually makes me think there's a glimmer of hope. Hillary will be forced to run on "Mend it, don't end it" in 2016 and claim that somehow she of the failed Hellarycare of the 1980s (and with any luck some very bungled foreign policy and a missed 3:00 a.m. phonecall) is exactly the person to do it.

  • Ted S.||

    Hillarycare was the 1990s. It's what gave me the idea that for every regulation the lawyer-legislators want to put on healthcare, we ought ot put the same regulations on lawyers.

  • Faceless Commenter||

    woops, 90s.

    And ah yes, to give the legislators a taste of their own bad medicine. I read somewhere the other day that someone is willing to introduce that little ol' 28th amendment in congress.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "We are being told that the barbaric belief system which continues to be embraced by tens of millions, that healthcare is only for those who can pay, is all wrong, and a new day has arrived."

    Yes, the day of the person who creates goods for is fellow human beings is over, and the days of the freeloader have begun!

  • Faceless Commenter||

    The "diary" is an amazing mix of solid math and magical ponies.

  • Sevo||

    From the used car thread:

    "What grabs me about this is [...]'s iron-clad commitment to policies that have failed, clearly failed, visibly failed, publicly failed, failed beyond any possibility of arguing that they haven’t failed."

    It just seems to fit.

  • Paul.||

    Again, it's why Detroit is so completely doomed.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    A simple tweak to the law will fix this unforeseeable consequence. Remove the exemptions for part time employees. Also, move the penalty threshold from 50 employees to one, just for good measure.

  • ||

    They've kind of already accounted for this. Not really sure why reason writers are ignoring this:

    http://www.fosterswift.com/pub.....shold.html

  • robc||

    Part timers count towards the threshold, but covering them isnt required.

  • Paul.||

    Negative. Move the threshold to 0 employees. That way everyone cares for everyone. It's the true single payer model.

  • Bill||

    That will be their next move. After first denying vehemently for the next year or so that this is really happening.

  • ||

    OT:

    I love it when Marxists on my FB try to pretend they're being insightful by posting obvious statements as though they are profound. Today's example:

    Discuss:
    "If there is going to be production without wages, then there must be distribution without money."

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    What the fuck does that even mean?

  • ||

    Ah, it means "to each according to his ability to game a system."

    It means rationing.

    It also means complete economic collapse if there is no price system or shadow price system (like what the USSR had by taking a look at Western prices).

  • John||

    It means people get stuff based on politics not on how much money they have. It doesn't matter if you are rich or poor or how hard you work. What matters is does the government like you and do you hold the proper politics.

  • Agammamon||

    Well, to be honest, it *doesn't* matter how hard you work.

    What matters is how *efficient* you are at the work you do - hard workers don't get shit, efficient ones do.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    If there is going to be production without wages, then the producers are called slaves.

  • ||

    He's really referring to Robot Slaves, in this case.

  • Pro Libertate||

    From each according to his ability, to each according to his vote.

  • Calidissident||

    I thought the exact same thing word-for-word to myself before I even read your comment

  • entropy||

    That means if you don't give him what he wants, he feels that justifies him taking whatever you have.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    There won't be the first thing, so don't worry about the second thing.

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

    I was trying to decipher this, and found Frequently Asked Questions about The Labor Theory of Value

  • Knarf Yenrab (prev. An0nB0t)||

    I got as far as "The LTV is the theory that market prices are attracted by prices proportional to the labor time embodied in commodities" before I had to stop to collect myself.

    Reading Marx is like landing on an alien planet where the dominant religion contends that food is poison and poison is food--the rejection of nature, induction, and reason kills everyone time and again, but they just keep doing it and rationalizing away any objections.

  • PapayaSF||

    It never made sense to me, either. If I am walking by a creek and find a gold nugget, my labor is negligible. If I spend a month digging a big hole in my backyard, my labor is substantial. According to the LTV, isn't the hole worth more?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Correct.

    Marginal theory of value accurately accounts for this discrepancy.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "If there is going to be production without wages, then there must be distribution without money."

    Who's advocating production without wages? Who's actually arguing that people shouldn't get paid for what they do?

    Certainly not capitalists!

    The only people I see arguing that somebody should work for free are Marxists--and they're arguing that the entrepreneurs should work without getting paid for what they do.

  • Knarf Yenrab (prev. An0nB0t)||

    Sounds like Ken's not much of a New Soviet man.

    Everyone knows that socialist societies reward their entrepreneurs with feelings of accomplishment for the benefits they have bestowed upon humanity. What greater reward could a person want?

    Unless he's greeeedy, that is.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Is it some kind of anti-automation slogan, the idea being that if automation displaces most workers then those workers will have to be given things 'without money'?

    That's the only sense I can make out of it.

  • ||

    ding ding ding. This guy is constantly stating that capitalism is going to break down because of automation.

  • Sevo||

    "This guy is constantly stating that capitalism is going to break down because of automation."

    Has anyone pointed out a guy named Ludd claimed the same thing a long time ago?

  • ||

    No, see it's different this time.

  • Hopfiend||

    Seems to me people who think this way, are the ones that lack imagination.

  • ||

    Here's an article he wrote about it

    This is the real economic crisis we face today, a crisis of capitalism itself. Capitalism, a system based on competition, can only exist in a world of scarcity. Capitalism is incompatible with a world of abundance where there is already more than enough homes to house everybody, food to feed everybody, and money to eradicate poverty four times over.

    http://peoplestribune.org/pt-n.....w-economy/

  • Knarf Yenrab (prev. An0nB0t)||

    A socialist who doesn't understand the concept of economic scarcity? Sounds like we've discovered a new species, gentlemen!

    And for the record, when we live in a world completely absent economic scarcity (meaning that we're all immortal Gods capable of creating worlds with a calorie-free thought), I'll gladly be a socialist. Sign me up.

  • ||

    We're almost there comrade, all these technological breakthroughs have already allowed us to solve many social problems. We could end poverty if only we could liberate the resources from those greedy rich bastards.

  • Sevo||

    There's another brain-dead pitching that stupidity. Fat, dumb and ugly, thrilled with musical instruments made from tree-stumps and cow-dung. Can't remember his name but Jon Carroll (lefty Chron columnist) is just thrilled with the claims.
    'Course, he's (J.C.) also the idiot who claims we're all 'just one paycheck away from being homeless!'

  • ||

  • Fatty Bolger||

    a world of abundance where there is already more than enough homes to house everybody, food to feed everybody, and money to eradicate poverty four times over

    The really funny thing is, guess who lives in that world? People in capitalist societies. Guess who doesn't? Everybody else.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "...and money to eradicate poverty four times over."

    Money without goods to buy cannot eradicate poverty. There's some shallow thinking behind that sentence.

  • ||

    But we have the money and all the unemployed people. So we just confiscate the money from the hoarders and use it to pay the unemployed people. Voila, no more poverty, no more hunger.

    Just imagine!

  • PapayaSF||

    That line struck me as well. I'd like to see evidence that money ever eradicated poverty, anywhere, at any time. I don't mean got some people out of poverty, I mean eradicated it in a nation, state, city, or some other sizable social unit.

    Example: San Francisco spends $200 million/year on the homeless. People might think that would be enough to eliminate the problem, but... nope.

  • robc||

    Ludd, Mathus, Keynes.

    They are always right THIS time.

  • Agammamon||

    You can point them to Lenin's New Economic Plan.

    Its what he had to implement with 4 years after the soviet revolution because he found out that his government couldn't run an economy without wages or money.

    Then you can ask them what's changed since 1921 that they think its possible *now*.

    Throw the ball back into their court.

  • MJGreen||

    So...OK. That sounds fine by me. Continue compensating workers through wages, and continue "distributing" with money.

    There, the Marxist troubles are resolved.

  • Monkey's Uncle||

    I'm sure I'm not alone in that I've seen this trend at my company for over 2 years now. The market responds as ever.

  • Bill||

    At my university they have started badgering us about student workers, and student researchers, and now a part time employee doing special projects.

    They never worried about this before but are now worried about it well before it actually is an active part of the law. Even worrying about how we ask for part time student researchers for 6 weeks in the summer. I don't think you would have to give a worker health care if they work for you for 6 weeks but my university is worried about it.

  • Sevo||

    ..."I don't think you would have to give a worker health care if they work for you for 6 weeks but my university is worried about it."

    Pretty sure there remains uncertainties about that, along with a bunch of other provisions.
    We're still 'finding out what's in it' and so is Obama, apparently. That delay didn't come about because it was planned that way.

  • ||

    This is where the Obama administration fails most miserably - they are completely unable to predict, with any accuracy at all, the impact each ridiculous proposal will have on real people living real lives.

    Bring back ANY former president of ANY party, and we would be in better shape than three more years with this imbecile.

  • Pope Jimbo||


    institutions are giving notification to their part-time faulty

    Please tell me that they really are calling their TAs "faulty"

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

    This would make Obama a part time lover

  • Ted S.||

    All I can say is Obama, you're wrong, go home

  • ||

    Here's the problem, given the way that the number of Full-time employees is calculated, you can only go so far in this work around.

    That's because for those that work less than 30 hours the law calculates them as fractional employees towards something called "full time equivalent" employees. So those employees that work 25 hours a week get counted towards that same 50 employee total as 5/6's of an employee.

  • Drizzle||

    +3/5

    What a compromise

  • ||

    +10

  • ||

    A "large employer" is defined as one with more than 50 full-time equivalent employees during the preceding calendar year.
    Both full-time and part-time employees are included in the calculation;
    "Full-time" employees are defined as those working 30 or more hours per week;
    "Full-time" excludes seasonal employees who work less than 120 days during the year;
    Part-time employees’ hours as a group are included in the calculation also. Hours worked by part-time employees (those working less than 30 hours per week) are included by, on a monthly basis, dividing their total number of monthly hours worked by 120.
    for example, a firm with 35 full-time employees (30+ hours), also has 20 part-time employees who all work 24 hours per week (so each employee who works 24 hours per week, works a total of 96 hours per month).
    These part-time employees’ hours would be counted as the equivalent of having 16 full-time employees, as follows:
    20 employees x 96 hours per month per employee /120
    = 1920/120
    = the equivalent of 16 "full-time" (30+ hours a week) employees

    http://www.fosterswift.com/pub.....shold.html

  • R C Dean||

    Tim, there are two different calculations based on employees. One is the 50 FTE trigger, and the other is the mandate that you provide full benefits to anyone working 30 or more hours per week.

    The 29 hour workaround doesn't affect the first at all, but works a charm on the second.

  • ||

    I see it now. Only the FT employees getting an exchange subsidy triggers the penaltax on employers, while having one of the PT employees obtain the same subsidy causes no effect.

  • ||

    This really is one of the most poorly written pieces of legislation...ever.

  • Sudden||

    Proggie spin: Our glorious leader is reducing the oppressive 40 hr work week!

  • Dr. Frankenstein||

    I was thnking this as well.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I've been wondering whether our economy might recover somewhat just because it's so friggin' huge and has overcome government attempts to kill it before. Then I see what's coming with ObamaDare, and I start wondering whether the collapse is closer than I think.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I think I have read of organisms living quite a long time with a tapeworm or similar parasite.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Glenn Beck has some more gold-plated coins to sell you then.

  • Sevo||

    Palin's Buttplug| 8.5.13 @ 10:03PM |#
    "Glenn Beck has some more gold-plated coins to sell you then."

    Pales in comparison to the stupidity you post regularly.

  • ||

    That's a relevant comment, since BeckGoldPlatedCoinCare is now the law of the land.

  • Sevo||

    Sudden| 8.5.13 @ 6:33PM |#
    "Proggie spin: Our glorious leader is reducing the oppressive 40 hr work week!"

    And the oppressive 40hr paycheck!

  • PRX||

    not surprising. these kind of things are to be expected when people elect a man who brags about being ignorant of how auto liability insurance works. next you'll be telling me people on salary are having to work longer hours because of Obamacare.

  • Redmanfms||

    You'll soon start to see that (if we aren't already), formerly hourly positions becoming salaried so that employers will be able to get more man hours with fewer employees.

    Of course, this will be labeled a "market failure."

  • OldMexican||

    Greg Mankiw[...], the chairman of the Harvard economics department, posted a letter from a college instructor today reporting that part time faculty are seeing their hours capped in order to avoid the law's penalties for not offering insurance coverage.


    That's not happening. The other day, while I was watching a mini-debate in Fox News, a liberal pundit and contributor told me that these were simply anecdotes and that people are starting to love the new healthcare law. And I trust her because she's a lesbian who looks like Frankenstein's monster, so it must be true.

  • Nazdrakke||

    And I trust her because she's a lesbian who looks like Frankenstein's monster,

    My high school guidance counselor is doing a thing on FOX now?

  • Redmanfms||

    Yeah, I saw that too. It's amazing that "mainstream liberals" who are hailed as "geniuses" make mouthbreathing TEAM!! fuckwits like Sean Hannity seem positively brilliant by comparison.

  • Sevo||

    ..."people are starting to love the new healthcare law"...

    Loving it so much that anyone who can is trying for an exemption and any company that can is trying to limit its involvement.
    If it's so loveable, I'm waiting to here which company Obama selected from the exchange.

  • Ted S.||

    Dr. Strangelove, Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Obamacare.

  • Nazdrakke||

    So Reason lit the PB signal and none of the trolls have shown up yet? Is it a troll holiday?

  • Sudden||

    They had to reduce their hours too yknow.

  • Bill||

    +1

  • fish||

    And I trust her because she's a lesbian who looks like Frankenstein's monster, so it must be true.

    I wondered what happened to all the extra DNA they used to manufacture uber snarky semi telegenic commentator Rachel Maddow. This one made from the leavins appears to be the Danny DeVito to Maddows Schwarzenegger.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Suderman,

    I don't know if you've posted this before (or if it was posted by someone else here at Reason), but somebody should mention that Hoffa, the president of the Teamsters' union, and also the president of the United Food and Commercial Workers union and the president of the union "Unite Here" all signed an open letter to the president saying the exact same thing you're saying, Suderman:

    "The law creates an incentive for employers to keep employees’ work hours below 30 hours a week. Numerous employers have begun to cut workers’ hours to avoid this obligation, and many of them are doing so openly. The impact is two-fold: fewer hours means less pay while also losing our current health benefits."

    http://blogs.wsj.com/corporate.....f-workers/

    I never thought I'd agree with the heads of those three unions (especially Hoffa of the Teamsters!), but when libertarians and the unions both agree so clearly about something? You'd think the president would take notice.

  • Pro Libertate||

    It would be the deepest irony if the large unions left the Democrats over Obamacare.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It certainly speaks to the credibility of the Obama Administration if the only people in this country who really want ObamaCare are the media and the Obama Administration.

  • Faceless Commenter||

    What is a union -- its bosses or its members?

    The way I see it, the rank and file's only connection to the DNC is through the unions. When ObamaCare hits, members ditch the unions because there's no point in paying dues; they can get better plans in the individual market. At that point, they become Republicans, what with being in the real world and undistorted markets and such.

    The union bosses are the losers, but they'll stay with the Dems to the bitter end. May it come soon.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "When ObamaCare hits, members ditch the unions because there's no point in paying dues; they can get better plans in the individual market."

    What evidence do you have to suggest that Teamsters union members, for instance, will get better medical insurance in the individual "market" under ObamaCare than what they've already got?

    Statistically, it's usually a safe bet that whatever you hear coming from a union's leadership is a lie. But when they're criticizing something Obama is doing? Better listen close.

    If the unions said that the only truly legitimate function of government is to protect individual rights, I wouldn't disagree with them just because it came from a union.

    Look again at that link I gave:

    "And finally, even though non-profit plans like ours won’t receive the same subsidies as for-profit plans, they’ll be taxed to pay for those subsidies. Taken together, these restrictions will make non-profit plans like ours unsustainable, and will undermine the health-care market of viable alternatives to the big health insurance companies."

    http://blogs.wsj.com/corporate.....f-workers/

  • Ken Shultz||

    I think that's a pretty accurate assessment of the situation from their perspective. Their members are not going to be able to find better plans than what they have now on the market. The ObamaCare healthcare "market" will destroy the healthcare market for all of us.

    The only people who MIGHT get better care out of this are the people who won't be paying anything for it, and even they'll be cheated in the end. Because the ambitious and industrious among them will never be able to afford better care on the market--because there isn't going to be any market left. ...not the way we're used to using the term "market", anyway.

  • Faceless Commenter||

    I have to admit, that was the very paragraph I glossed over in the letter. I don't know what "non-profit health insurance plans" are and exactly how you tax a plan.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    It would be the deepest irony if the large unions left the Democrats over Obamacare.

    Actually, it wouldn't be.

    Because one of the main selling points of unions is the 'fantastic benefits' that they get for their members. A selling point that disappears completely for unions when everyone has the same crappy socialized health insurance. The union's leadership is so enmeshed in socialist bullshit that they missed this threat to their existence in the rush to pass Obamacare. But the truth will, and slowly is, dawning on them.

  • Faceless Commenter||

    They don't really agree. The unions want an illegal exemption same as the Congressbitches and their staffers got. And I bet they get it.

  • Sevo||

    "The unions want an illegal exemption same as the Congressbitches and their staffers got. And I bet they get it."

    By royal decree!

  • Faceless Commenter||

    By royal decree!

    That's "same as the Congressbitches and their staffers got" all right.

  • Sevo||

    Congress life-forms need to grow a pair; watching Obama declare new laws really should piss someone off.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    The unions never liked the current healthcare law. They liked the public option and single-payer, but Obamacare really ruins a lot of the careful negotiation that they've made with companies about compensation.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I wonder, why would they like public option or single payer? Wouldn't most union members have jobs and most of those jobs health benefits?

  • Hyperion||

    What we really need is a world where the incentive to do nothing exceeds the incentive to do anything. That will be paradise. Just ask any Proglodyte and they will explain it all to you.

  • PH2050||

    What we really need is a world where the incentive to do nothing exceeds the incentive to do anything. That will be paradise

    If you're talking about applying this to Congress, I totally agree.

  • PapayaSF||

    OT and old, but funny: Exhausted Noam Chomsky Just Going To Try And Enjoy The Day For Once.

    "Sources said Chomsky took what was supposed to be a refreshing drive in the countryside, only to find himself obsessing over the role petroleum plays in the economic and military policies that collude with multinational corporate powers."

    This is how progressives make themselves miserable.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I see that the Peanut Gallery has decided Jeff Bezos is not a real libertarian based on some contributions to Team Blue.

    Team Red contributions - FINE.

    He didn't even get to take the LP Purity Test.

  • Damned Fool||

    Methinks taking the Buttplug test is an automatic demerit.

  • Sevo||

    "Methinks taking the Buttplug test is an automatic demerit."

    "Passing" it does not help your cause, either.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Dear dipshit,

    Nick Hanauer and other anonymous sources described Bezos as libertarian. Bezos has never called himself a libertarian. He has not stated any interest or knowledge of libertarian political philosophy.

    Now go soak your head, shrieky.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    That does not contradict anything I wrote.

    The Peanut Gallery discredited Bezos based on a (D) donation - end.

  • Boba Fudd||

    yawn.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    The Peanut Gallery discredited Bezos based on a (D) donation - end.

    I've read the thread, shrieky-poo. Three whole posts concerning Bezos' political donations, one of which suggested that it was a smart move to stay in TEAM Blue's good graces.

    The rest was snark and OT.

    If you're going to lie, at least lie about something that's difficult to verify.

  • Sevo||

    "If you're going to lie, at least lie about something that's difficult to verify."

    This is what makes shreek and shithead so hateful; the absolutely insulting presumptions that none of the commenters here can see through the lies posted.
    Godammit, if you gonna lie, do in in a way that isn't insulting to those reading the lies!

  • ||

    2 things. First it wasn't a donation, it was a series of them. I don't look at his list of donations and see someone who has supported libertarian leaning candidates of either party. In fact, I see someone who has supported local powers with an eye towards gaining audience and favor.

    Secondly, discounting his libertarian credentials really isn't that hard. His only activism is regarding last year's Washington State same-sex marriage referendum. He hasn't exactly been a stalwart voice for liberty over the last 20 years.

  • Redmanfms||

    some call you a homo!!!

    Hey squirrels, can you nuke this Mary sock already???

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    One thing can be said about conservative Phyllis Schafley, she can actually make me take Obama's side in an argument.

    -When will Republicans wake up to the way U.S. jobs are betrayed by Barack Obama and the corporate interests that hide under the moniker “free trade”?

    -Trade agreements are supposed to be about increasing job-creating exports. They are not. They are about creating imports from low-wage countries, who often cheat us coming and going.

    http://www.eagleforum.org/publ.....ments.html

    I know I feel cheated when I buy an import for much cheaper than I would have had to spend for it made domestically.

  • Sevo||

    "Trade agreements are supposed to be about increasing job-creating exports. They are not. They are about creating imports from low-wage countries, who often cheat us coming and going."

    It seems she thinks "trade agreements" are simply announced by the US rather than agreed upon.

  • Agammamon||

    By her logic, we could take all that we make, sail it outside our borders and dump it in the water and we'd be better off.

  • Knarf Yenrab (prev. An0nB0t)||

    A fine idea provided that the state were to seal all such products in air-tight containers and then hire crews of unemployed workers to dredge them back up again.

    /JMK

  • Agammamon||

    But then you'd be getting 'imports' and that would destroy your export/import ratio.

  • Knarf Yenrab (prev. An0nB0t)||

    We'll just dump it in the bay, then.

    Economics!

  • Sevo||

    ^?

  • Knarf Yenrab (prev. An0nB0t)||

    She's just incensed by the WaPo sale.

  • Boba Fudd||

    We have a new troll! I'm so excited! I think it may be PB's sockpuppet, though.

  • Sevo||

    PB is an idiot liar, but this one is well over the edge.
    Avoid eye contact, back slowly toward the door.

  • Knarf Yenrab (prev. An0nB0t)||

    Or just wait until morning when the cleansing light of day (or the most despised intern) wipes away the blight.

  • Hopfiend||

    It isn't even an entertaining act.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Phyllis Schafley was old-school when Reagan was around. I'm surprised she still has a column.

  • Agammamon||

    My only exposure to her has been through 'Bloom County" - I was surprised she was still alive.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    I know I feel cheated when I buy an import for much cheaper than I would have had to spend for it made domestically.

    David Hume says hello. And feel free to continue stealing his arguments against mercantilism.

  • ReganT||

    I remember seeing articles about shrinking FTE/rising PTE a few years ago. I think the trend may even predate Obamacare. However, if there's anybody who could make a bad situation worse it's Obama.

  • ReganT||

  • ||

    I'm sure PT hiring was more common in '08-'10 just based on economic factors. It's pretty common in a slowdown to cut back to PT employees or to hire PT instead of FT.

  • ReganT||

    What I was trying to get at was that Obamacare is not the main cause of the moving full timers to part time--the trend has been going on for some time. Obamacare just makes it worse. It's as if the fire is roaring out of control and they try to put it out by spraying gasoline on it.

  • Sevo||

    "I remember seeing articles about shrinking FTE/rising PTE a few years ago. I think the trend may even predate Obamacare."

    The trend should be that way; IT, telecom, etc means people can more easily work remotely and either part-time or as contractors. And Obozoscare isn't the first bene companies would rather avoid.

  • ReganT||

    Why should the trend be that way? Those are workers who were looking for full time work but had to settle for part time. Why is being underemployed a good thing?

  • MappRapp||

    Wow man thats some pretty crazy stuff when you think aboutit.

    www.Privacy-Rox.tk

  • A Serious Man||

    I miss WomSom. This new bot is totally phoning it in.

  • ||

    Well, I miss waamin.

  • A Serious Man||

    OT: The New Republic on Jeff Bezos

    His politics are not visibly objectionable. But let’s not kid ourselves here: The company that made him one of the richest men in the world has had a less than benign impact on our nation. It has devastated the publishing industry, from the big presses to the small booksellers. It has exacerbated the growth of the low-wage economy, to the point where the president feels the need to celebrate an increase in warehouse jobs that will pay barely more than minimum wage...

    More generally, Amazon has embodied, more than any other of the giants that rule our new landscape, the faster-cheaper-further mindset that scratches away daily at our communal fabric: Why bother running down to the store around the block if you can buy it with a click? No risk of running into someone on the way and actually having to talk to them, and hey, can you beat that price? No thought given to the externalities that make that price possible—the workers being violently shocked every time they pull a book off the warehouse shelf, or losing a chunk of their lunch break to go through the security checkpoint set up by their oh-so-trusting employer. They’re Somewhere Else, working for a company that is Out There, in the cloud.

    Amazing how progressives will embrace Luddite ideas in the name of 'community'.

  • Agammamon||

    "risk of running into someone on the way and actually having to talk to them"

    Yeah, that's kinda a *feature* and not a bug.

  • Agammamon||

    I used to live on the edge of downtown San Diego and remember having to walk through a swarm of a bajillion street people begging for money to get to the bookstore.

    No I live in Yuma and its a 10 mile drive each way - in both cases having home delivery is a blessing.

    As a matter of fact these people should be happy Amazon is destroying B&M bookstores. Now the stuff is moving towards an efficient 'mass transit' model that will reduce global warming emissions.

    I mean , that's what they want to do to people right?

  • General Butt Naked||

    They want to reduce the ability of people to make a living outside government control to zero.

    If that means pushing global warming, then they'll do that. If it means vilifying a business that would theoretically reduce global warming via its model, then so be it. They'll only be happy when their boot is the one smashing humanity's head for a 1000 year reich. Fucking sickos, the lot of 'em.

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    Not that I need to tell you this, but they want every positive aspect of every possible economic order or arrangement, without any of the attending negative aspects. In short, they refuse to acknowledge tradeoffs, ontologically.

    Thomas Sowell was actually too generous to their type in A Conflict of Visions. Their vision is unconstrained by not only human nature, but any element of reality.

  • Damned Fool||

    You could see him straining to remain neutral in that book. I have to say the chart comparing Smith and Godwin's visions of help and harm by intentionality was ridiculously insightful.

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    Your reading is more charitable than mine: I thought he was straining to forbear complete intellectual partisanship. (Perhaps I am too sympathetic because I cleave to the constrained vision).

  • Damned Fool||

    I know what you mean. He did a good job explaining the logical implications of the unconstrained vision, but I believe the unconstrained vision to be stupid, and I know he does too based on his other works, so I kept on filling in the blanks and subconsciously comparing visions and such. He did as good a job keeping neutral as could be expected. I actually made headway converting a liberal with this book.

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    Score one for Tommy S.!

    I feel the need to celebrate every victory, by anyone, considering how few I have...

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Love Conflict of Visions -- I'm surprised that it is not more widely mentioned in the libertarian community.

  • Damned Fool||

    The book tends to frame things as a two-sided clash with the American right taking the constrained vision. Libertarianism is treated as a hybrid. I think it actually fits more as a mild version of the constrained vision (no amazing leaders, stable rules, civil society has customs and such that people use for social cohesion, but it doesn't have to be law).

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    IIRC, T Sowell *always* characterizes the American right as being very similar to libertarianism/classical liberalism, though. In some ways, I would see the American right as the more "diluted" stream of classical liberalism, as much of the American tradition of libertarianism is in the Scottish Enlightenment tradition of skepticism (which fits the constrained view), whereas parts of the conservative movement (WOD, Iraq War) have been criticized elsewhere by Sowell as part of the unconstrained tradition.

    You could make an alternate argument if you focus on anarcho-capitalists like Spooner and Rothbard as representative of the libertarian tradition.

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    That is another reason why I don't self-identify as "libertarian": I like my tents small, and it's already crowded in here with the Scots, Founders, Bourbon Democrats, etc.

    As for Sowell, I actually don't find his categorical assignments all that persuasive, due in large part to the swath of movements, institutions, and individuals that he declines to classify. (I am forgiving, as time and ink are scarce. However, missing groups or those briefly discussed must often be the answer to other questions of categorization.)

  • ||

    How has Amazon devastated the publishing industry?

  • ||

    Cause ebooks

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Do they think regular bookstores don't have items delivered from warehouses or loss prevention programs?

  • Anonymous Coward||

    So this long-winded procession of whine and cheese service can be summarized as: "Amazon doesn't air-condition its warehouses! WAAAHHHHHH!"

    As former employee of UPS (unionized), UPS sure as hell doesn't air-condition or heat their warehouses. We survived somehow, loading and unloading trucks with packages varying from 1 pound to 75 pounds.

    "Amazon has "devastated" publishers and the local bookseller! WAAAHHHH!!!"

    And the consumer has profited from it. I can't wait to hear Mr. MacGillis' plan to bail out the lamplighters' business.

    "Our communal sense of community is being destroyed! People don't have to interact with others to buy things! WAAAHHHH!!!"

    Dealing with equal parts snooty and condescending booksellers (Hi Borders!) was always such a pleasure.

  • Sevo||

    "Dealing with equal parts snooty and condescending booksellers (Hi Borders!) was always such a pleasure."

    I was in the one near the ball park in SF just before it closed.
    The staff seemed to have taken some sort of training; for the first time, it was as if they really wanted my business!
    Too little, too late; gone.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -"Our communal sense of community is being destroyed!

    How much would you like to wager that a substantial number of people making this complaint condemn George Zimmerman's taking time to engage in a community watch as evidence he was up to no good?

  • A Serious Man||

    How much would you like to wager that a substantial number of people making this complaint condemn George Zimmerman's taking time to engage in a community watch as evidence he was up to no good?

    Today the professor teaching the statistics course I'm taking used George Zimmerman's acquittal as an example of a Type II error: not rejecting the null hypothesis (Zimmerman being presumed not guilty) when you should have because he murdered Trayvon Martin. He was being dead serious.

  • Knarf Yenrab (prev. An0nB0t)||

    And the consumer has profited from it. I can't wait to hear Mr. MacGillis' plan to bail out the lamplighters' business.

    I'm still holding out for a wainwright subsidy to preserve our cultural heritage. A job is a job, after all.

  • MJGreen||

    Why bother running down to the store around the block if you can buy it with a click? No risk of running into someone on the way and actually having to talk to them, and hey, can you beat that price?

    Yep. More money to spend out at a bar with friends, or take a trip, or go consume some culture.

    How many friends have you made on your way to the corner store? And what if you're one of the unwashed masses who - gasp! - doesn't live in a city and can't just go around the corner for all of your needs?

    No thought given to the externalities that make that price possible—the workers being violently shocked every time they pull a book off the warehouse shelf, or losing a chunk of their lunch break to go through the security checkpoint set up by their oh-so-trusting employer.

    Huh?

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Egyptian jihadists fire U.S.-made Hellfire missile at government building

    Jihadists in Egypt's lawless Sinai Peninsula are using U.S. weapons to carry out attacks against the temporary government in the wake of the military's ouster of President Mohammed Morsi, according to the embattled nation's Interior Ministry.

    The government office posted an official statement on its Facebook page along with images of an exploded missile that hit the third floor of a building in the city of el-Arish last week. While attacks in the Sinai, which borders Gaza and is a haven for terrorist activity, have become commonplace, the prospect that militants have U.S. weapons typically fired from helicopters at their disposal is especially alarming.

    Reports of U.S.-made weapons turning up in the Sinai date back to at least January, when six U.S.-made missiles were found in a cache of weapons bound for Gaza. And in February, FoxNews.com reported exclusively that weapons left over from the revolution in Libya were being sold at clandestine auctions is the Sinai Peninsula. The U.S. has repeatedly denied arming the Libyan rebels, though it did assist them in other ways with the overthrow of longtime Libyan strongman Muammar Qaddafi.

    Totally unforeseeable.

  • PapayaSF||

    I doubt if we gave Hellfires to any rebel groups. Based on which countries use it, I'd suspect they got them from Egyptian army stock, or possibly from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, or Lebanon.

  • ||

    I'd suspect they got them from Egyptian army stock

    That's the point.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Would anyone care to defend the proposition of arming Egypt or any nation on that list with some of our finest anti-tank weapons?

    Because I sure as hell can't think of a good one.

  • Boba Fudd||

    Money for Top.Men. ? Bribes to keep oppressive foreign leaders in our pocket?

  • Agammamon||

    Yah know, that's a thinker right there. The only people in the middle east with tanks worth a damn are us and the Israelis.

  • PapayaSF||

    I tried arguing about this with a Democrat friend, regarding the F-16s and tanks we were sending. I said the Egyptians were going hungry, and why are we sending arms to the Muslim Brotherhood? Who are the Egyptians defending themselves against?

    He was OK with it as standard make-nice-with-other-countries diplomacy, but I am sure that if a Republican president were sending arms to rightist regime he'd be having a fit.

  • Calidissident||

    I take it Mary is off her meds again?

  • A Serious Man||

    She's a sick, sick woman. Kudos to everyone for ignoring it.

  • Sevo||

    I 'took the bait' once, but thereafter, it was far enough over the edge that there was no desire to engage.
    Sad.

  • Boba Fudd||

    Sorry, I like a pinata. I'll ignore.

  • Agammamon||

    ". . .the faster-cheaper-further mindset that scratches away daily at our communal fabric"

    Yah know, its funny - where I live the closest bookstore is 10 miles away and yet that doesn't seem to have destroyed the communal fabric of this community. People still get out and wander around and say hi to each other even though we either get stuff delivered or shop at Walmart.

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    Steve Austin is out to get you and yours!

  • Agammamon||

    Isn't that "Better Faster Stronger"?

    I used to love that show.

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    With all of the ridiculous memes that the commentariat peddles, we really ought to make that one -- perhaps splice it with a good, apocryphal quote from Andrew Mellon.

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    Inspiration for all of you socially graced smartypants.

    Go and do likewise, gents...

  • Sevo||

    Also OT:
    The workers at BART (SF's light rail) are threatening to strike, and the raises they're requesting are not getting the love from the residents or riders. The strike was held off for a month in July, scheduled for today, but moonbeam 'interceded'.
    Anyhow, now the East Bay bus line (AC Transit) workers are going out on Wednesday; not a sympathy strike, just a strike.
    One of his moonbeam's advisers on the matter was an SEIU rep for 14 years, so you can kinda see where the sympathies lie. Moonbeam also pitched and signed the Educational Employment Relations Act and the Ralph C. Dills Act requiring governments to negotiate with (in effect)the SEIU.
    (The Chron somehow 'lost' the 350-comment thread on BART, but here's the AC article): http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/.....708078.php
    I'm predicting one of monnbeam's 'compromises', where the unions get everything they want, while moonbeam claims 'success' since he didn't give them the extra 6 months vacation they didn't ask for.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Here in p-burgh, the transit workers striked (sp?) in the '90s and had the public behind them with people joining them on the picket lines.

    After a over a decade of cuts, price increases and exposes about gold-plated benefits their attempt at a strike a couple of years ago was met with public scorn. Basically, the town's response (save for a few union suckers) was to tell them to pound sand and hire new drivers. It was great, especially for a democratic city like pittsburgh.

  • Sevo||

    I'm sure you're familiar with the one-party (D) rule of CA and the bay area.
    The question now (given the overwhelming bias of the comments) is whether that sort of response can happen here.
    Papaya SF isn't impressed, I'm cynical but somewhat hopeful, moonbeam is a lying pile of shit.
    We'll see.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I don't know if it was so much a true turn of public opinion or that the unions pissed off someone in the press.

    We have 2 big papers, 1 left and 1 right. The left-leaning one was printing stories of bus drivers making over a $100k a year (a fortune in p-burgh), little old ladies/the handicapped losing their stops, and working class people that depended on the bus who'd lose their jobs.

    If people really need BART to get to work, it may bust through their politics in shaping how they feel about a strike.

  • Sevo||

    "We have 2 big papers, 1 left and 1 right."

    Yer lucky. We have one big paper, somewhat left of Danny Glover. Three 'free' papers, one of them a bit right of that.

  • PapayaSF||

    Not sure what you mean by me not being "impressed." I do find it notable that SFGate comments and likes are running 3-4 to 1 against the union, even likes on comments advocating "busting" it. I'm doubtful that will happen, in part because the Democratic/progressive/union machinery of state has a great deal of inertia.

  • ||

    There was a similar lack of support in Philly in 2009 when the transit workers threatened a strike during the World Series.

  • Agammamon||

    This sort of shit, by itself, should be enough to destroy the fantasy that mass transit is some sort of panacea for urban transport ills.

    I would go out of my mind if some piss-drinker driving a bus could ruin my livelihood at a whim.

    And they would. What almost all of the pro-transit fethers don't understand is 'market clearing price'. If the majority of us are forced into mass transit then the transit operators can raise prices because they have little competition.

  • Sevo||

    ..."What almost all of the pro-transit fethers don't understand is 'market clearing price'."...
    I offered a definition to several of the local writers, including the guess that the BART workers were probably paid 50% over clearing price.
    Strangely, none seemed interested in including that in the stories about the workers.
    The writers are union in SF.

  • Sevo||

    "Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said consumers can now go online to healthcare.gov and create personal accounts by establishing a username and password."
    Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2.....rylink=cpy

    So you can provide the feds with all the info they desire, but:
    "However, serious shopping will have to wait until sometime in September, when details on insurance plans and premiums offered in local areas will become available through the new online marketplace."
    The wicked witch of the west swears they're on time!

  • prolefeed||

    General Butt Naked| 8.5.13 @ 9:37PM |#

    I'm not cool, hip, caring or intelligent; I just want to be left alone to live a peaceful life.

    And anyone who thinks it's cool, hip, caring, or intelligent to put a fucking gun to my head to further their demented social engineering agenda should suck deep on the business end of a shotgun.

    This simultaneously wins both The Thread * and * The Much Gayer Sounding Than Prolly Intended awards.

  • xinmei||

    Lingerie, Top Quality and Low Prices on the hottest Sexy Lingerie, Wholesale Costumes, Wholesale swimwear, Sexy Leggings, Fashion Dresses and more. Huge Selection.

  • ||

    indicated it would provide employees full-time jobs with benefits—and then decided that half the jobs would be part time, with no health benefits.

    hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    Obama is so inexperienced. Why anyone, rich or poor, employed or not voted for him remains a mystery to me. Eloquence does not, a leader make.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement