Red Lobster, Olive Garden cutting workers hours due to 'Obamacare'

[behindmydesk]

I always thought public schools help increase the value of your house. If you are in a good school district then you will see a big increase in your property value when you try to sell your house.

Ehh just to play devil's advocate so do great fire stations, police protection, closeness to public parks etc.

Lots of people don't realize but fire stations are rated due to response times education etc (especially the volunteer departments). Well if you live within 1 mile of a good one you get a great discount on your home owners insurance.
Ability for good paying jobs close will also drive up housing markets. Lots of things drive up housing markets, none of them are crime though.

[GGGGG-Men]

Like I said previously... less profit means somebody is paying for it... which means people are paying for you to have the RIGHT to have health insurance... that is not morally right

Or, the business pays for it and the cost of it ends there. At their profits. The business is up $50 mil instead of $100 mil for the quarter. It doesn't have to go further than that. We're not talking operational costs, we're talking profit.

I suck at economics, so feel free to point out my ignorance on what I'm missing here.

[behindmydesk]

Or, the business pays for it and the cost of it ends there. At their profits. The business is up $50 mil instead of $100 mil for the quarter. It doesn't have to go further than that. We're not talking operational costs, we're talking profit.

I suck at economics, so feel free to point out my ignorance on what I'm missing here.

But basically what your saying is we should limit what a company makes. Your basically saying unless i'm misreading we can keep putting any regulation we want on you because you make enough money. Who cares if you only make half your still making. But the problem is we could ask 1000 people and get 925 different answers what is an acceptable profit. Complete strawman here but why stop at health care, why not provide clothing cars food etc.

I personally like the idea(I don't do this because it seems like a lot of work to figure out and i'm a small company and don't have the time to really do it, and I don't know the actual law on this) but you basically put a price on the benefits. You get 20 bucks an hour or 700 bucks a week whatever, and you get this many benefits but you choose. Would you like full health care covered by the company that's fine but you lose something else or get less of something such as 401K contributions or less vacation. I think it's fair that way, and people have different things important. For instance, I personally since I"m young and not sick ever besides the broken leg, bad back, and some other things. Anyway I could say well I elect for the 50-75 dollar office visit heck even 100, and 5k deductible, so im covered in case I get cancer or something horrible happens, but because I chose the lower level of there I get my first 5% instead of 3% matched in my IRA and get a weeks vacation extra then the normal.

[dbroncos78087]

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-t...ayoffs-2012-11

Interesting article that finishes the end that the "unbias" articles from the Washington Times and Fox News have to say.

[cabernetluver]

I always thought public schools help increase the value of your house. If you are in a good school district then you will see a big increase in your property value when you try to sell your house.

Public schools only improve or depress the value of a home when comparing public school districts. If only those with children in school paid for the schools it would not effect the value of homes.

My point is we pay for things we don't personally use, nor get a direct benefit from, but it is not in any way immoral. It is only immoral if you assign immorality to it, not per se immoral.

[cabernetluver]

Correct but every company has workers and electric etc, they all will look for ways to cut costs especially in bad economic times. Reminds me of a company I deal with. Basically they make insulation for companies. Insult pipes etc for energy savings for more efficient operatings etc. It's a bit of a all things insulation. IE if you got an idea they will build it for you. I was visiting them in like 01 when things were starting to get pretty bad (not like 07-09) and I said you guys busy and they said oh god yes. I said oh good a lot of people are slowing down, and they said yea we layed off workers in 1998 because things were going good enough that no one worried about things like this. Now things are slowing down so they are looking for savings.

I'm not to hip on having to pay for public schools myself. Heck I have a company in one county and live in another and pay property taxes to support 2 public school systems when I A dont' have kids, and B if I had kids (and my wife proved they were mine) I wouldn't be sending them to public schools anyway.

I of course agree that companies look for ways to maximize profits, but, this is an excuse, not a reason. You and I both know that you hire when demand cannot be filled by your existing work force, and you keep people, if cutting would lower your profits.

Cutting costs, is not, in and of itself a guarantee of higher profits. Cutting in the wrong places can wind up costing profits.

[GGGGG-Men]

But basically what your saying is we should limit what a company makes. Your basically saying unless i'm misreading we can keep putting any regulation we want on you because you make enough money. Who cares if you only make half your still making. But the problem is we could ask 1000 people and get 925 different answers what is an acceptable profit. Complete strawman here but why stop at health care, why not provide clothing cars food etc.

I personally like the idea(I don't do this because it seems like a lot of work to figure out and i'm a small company and don't have the time to really do it, and I don't know the actual law on this) but you basically put a price on the benefits. You get 20 bucks an hour or 700 bucks a week whatever, and you get this many benefits but you choose. Would you like full health care covered by the company that's fine but you lose something else or get less of something such as 401K contributions or less vacation. I think it's fair that way, and people have different things important. For instance, I personally since I"m young and not sick ever besides the broken leg, bad back, and some other things. Anyway I could say well I elect for the 50-75 dollar office visit heck even 100, and 5k deductible, so im covered in case I get cancer or something horrible happens, but because I chose the lower level of there I get my first 5% instead of 3% matched in my IRA and get a weeks vacation extra then the normal.

I'm not making a statement for a cap or anything like that on companies. I'm not interested in solutions, I'm interested in *****ing about the way things are. All I'm saying is that I think it's ****** that a new cost comes along and rather than eating some of it for the benefit of their already low paid employees, they'll pass it on to the same employees who are supposed to benefit from it.

People can't afford healthcare, so gov't starts a program which costs employers money and so they pass the cost on to the people who couldn't afford it in the first ****ing place.

My only point is that I think greed is ******. We're in a corporatocracy now.

[homestarunner93]

making others pay so you can have the RIGHT to have health insurance is immoral and unjust

You have your argument wrong. Healthcare isn't a right, it is a privilege. People can call it unethical or inhumane, but it is and should be a fact of life.

[behindmydesk]

I of course agree that companies look for ways to maximize profits, but, this is an excuse, not a reason. You and I both know that you hire when demand cannot be filled by your existing work force, and you keep people, if cutting would lower your profits.

Cutting costs, is not, in and of itself a guarantee of higher profits. Cutting in the wrong places can wind up costing profits.

Agreed. If the demand is there you are going to hire people to make more money.

The best way to negotiate workers right is having a great economy with companies hiring thus allowing workers to choose.

[cabernetluver]

Agreed. If the demand is there you are going to hire people to make more money.

The best way to negotiate workers right is having a great economy with companies hiring thus allowing workers to choose.

As an investor, I have always followed what I understand, that being a value based investor. Buy something for less than I think I can sell it for, and it will attain that value. Simple

The same is true about economics. I have always been demand based, not supply side. I understand demand based economics. The higher the demand for goods or services, the better off companies are, and the better off workers are. Bringing this back to the topic, Red Lobster and Olive Garden are not suffering because of Obamacare, they are suffering from lack of demand. I cannot remember the last time I went to either of them.

[GGGGG-Men]

You have your argument wrong. Healthcare isn't a right, it is a privilege. People can call it unethical or inhumane, but it is and should be a fact of life.

Hippocrates might say otherwise. No right to be helped by fellow man when we're ill.....lovely.

[cabernetluver]

Hippocrates might say otherwise. No right to be helped by fellow man when we're ill.....lovely.

The reality is that to one degree or another, we did decide that health care is a right. To paraphrase the losing presidential candidate, if you have a heart attack you will be picked up by an ambulance, taken to a hospital, and be cared for. This right/privilege argument is done. The real argument is what is the most efficacious way of dealing with it.

[dbroncos78087]

I'm not really sure why we are having a debate about health care being established as a right by Obamacare. It had long been established as such by state and federal law with regard to the emergency room treatment and Medicare/Medicaid.

Obamacare actually imposes a requirement that you are responsible for your own health care or your employer must provide it if you don't/can't.

[homestarunner93]

I don't think it was established as a right by Obamacare. I just don't think it is a right. Obamacare is just a bigger step in the wrong direction.

[dbroncos78087]

I don't think it was established as a right by Obamacare. I just don't think it is a right. Obamacare is just a bigger step in the wrong direction.

I'm glad to see you agree on the first part. But the second part, the nation has decided that it is going in a different direction than you want it to do so.