Obamacare will cause a surge in part-time employment, any minute now!

Just yesterday, November 11th 2014, the conservative “Power Line Blog” sang songs of doom and gloom for the Affordable Care Act (i.e. Obamacare), and predicted: “2015 is the year when the employer mandate begins to take effect (it is phased in over several years, depending on the size of the employer). As the mandate takes effect, many employers will either lay off workers or reduce their hours below 30 per week so that they are not eligible for health insurance, or they will terminate their plans altogether.”

It’s important to point out that the above quote is from YESTERDAY, since it essentially is the same prediction that conservatives made in 2010:

“Employers may decide to limit the number of full-time employees, favoring part-time employees instead.”

And in 2011:

Obamacare Will Price Less Skilled Workers Out of Full-Time Jobs

And in 2012:

Will ObamaCare turn us into a nation of part-time employees?

And in 2013:

Wendy’s Franchisee Slashes Employee Hours To Sidestep Obamacare

 

Yet, weirdly, when you look at the actual data on part-time employment, shown in this graph below made from an analysis of BLS data, they show that although part-time employment surged as a consequence of the 2008 recession, it has actually decreased slowly but steadily each of the years since Obamacare was signed into law.

Full time vs. part time employment and Obamacare a.k.a. the Affordable Care Act

Decreased each year… despite each year conservative pundits screaming that surely–without a doubt–Obamacare will lead us to a “part time economy.”

That’s why it is so notable that now, in 2014, we have yet another conservative blogger predicting that this time no really honest-to-goodness 2015 is the actual year it will happen! We will just see a skyrocket in part-time employment, because of Obamacare.

Really. This time. Any minute now!

You just wait.

 

Total Jobs has a liberal bias!

Attention all conservatives! The following is an important announcement concerning your Tweets, Facebook Status Updates, and blog comments.

DO NOT EVER talk about the “number of jobs” or in America. We have recently discovered that the total number of employees in the United States today is larger than ever before, even larger than it was right before the George Bush Obama Recession of 2008.

Total Jobs

So if you claim that “jobs have never fully recovered under Obama”… regrettably, the facts apparently do not agree.

And if you claim that “there are fewer people working under Obama”… as sad as it is, this turns out not to be a true statement.

Instead, please make sure you talk about things like “size of the labor force” and “underemployment”. These are awesome words because nobody knows exactly what they mean, and you get get into nit-picky arguments about how they are measured.

When you talk about these things, you can IMPLY that there are fewer jobs than ever under Obama, by saying “The labor force as a percentage of population never recovered under Obama!”  Most people will just assume that this means not as many people are working, and you won’t technically be lying! IT’S A WIN-WIN!

So go forth, my pretties! Leave your comments, post your tweets, and complain that the economy is just the worst thing ever under Obama!

Just make sure you never ever mention the fact that there are more actual employed people now than ever before. That might lead to people’s thoughts having some kind of liberal bias!!!!

 

This graph DARES to suggest that “trickle-down” doesn’t work!

Profits, Wages and the Stock Market

Profits, Wages and the Stock Market

Ronald Reagan was an advocate of trickle-down economics. Ronald Reagan was perfect in every way. Therefore, this graph is wrong.  That’s just logic.

For those of you who don’t know, “trickle-down economics” is the very sensible conservative view that the most important thing in the economy is rich people.  When rich people do well, they buy stuff that you make and hire you to fix their boats and airplanes and take away their garbage.  In other words, everyone is happy, because you should thankful to even be employed at all, you lazy bum.

Ronald Reagen did not invent trickle-down economics. In fact, as a theory it has been around since at least the 1890’s, when it was called the “horse and sparrow theory” of economics. The idea is that if you feed a horse enough oats, it will eventually shit them out onto the road, and then the sparrows will be able to eat the oats from the road.

The Reagan administration wisely decided to use the term “supply-side economics”. It is basically the same concept.  However, they rarely, if ever, mentioned sparrows eating horse shit in their economic discussions.

At any rate, the point is that when rich people are better off, they make everyone better off. When the horse eats more oats, the sparrows get more oats. That’s a core bedrock principle of conservative economics.

Yet somehow, inexplicably, the above graph seems to indicate otherwise.  In this graph, you can see that the horses have been eating more and more oats over the last four years: corporate profits and stock value are going up and up and up.  Yet somehow, the sparrows are not getting more oats: the earnings of workers are staying about the same.

Where are your oats, Liberal Graph?

As conservatives, we take as axiomatic that trickle-down theory must be correct; therefore, the only possible conclusion is that this graph is just wrong.

Yet another case of numbers and statistics having liberal bias!!!

 

graph data source: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
graph found via: The Huffington Post

Data show no effect of minimum wage on job loss. Must be liberal bias!

Changes in minimum wage have no impact on job loss... OR SO THEY CLAIM

Changes in minimum wage have no impact on job loss... OR SO THEY CLAIM

This graph supposedly shows that increasing minimum wage doesn’t, on average, lead to people losing their jobs. Luckily, most good conservatives don’t trust fancy voodoo statistics like these.

Of course economists have been studying the relationship between minimum wage and employment for a very long time. Recently, economist John Schmitt pulled together a “meta-analysis” where he collected data from a huge number of different studies, and was very careful to use only the best data and make the most careful comparisons, in order to measure the actual impact of minimum wage increases specifically on young employees across the country.

Although some studies shows a small positive influence on employment and some studies showed a small negative influence, the overall result was a very dramatic NO EFFECT.  Specifically, it appears that increases in minimum wage do not actually have a measurable impact on the level of employment.

In other words, when minimum wage increases, this study suggests that, on average, people do not get fired: they simply get paid more.

THIS IS WHY CONSERVATIVES KNOW NOT TO TRUST DATA!!

This result is in obvious contradiction to conservative values, which state very clearly that increasing minimum wage destroys all business and leads to socialism.

In fact, John Boehner himself recently said, “When you raise the price of employment, guess what happens? You get less of it!”

And who needs to consult loads and loads of actual measurable data, when you can just listen to John Boehner instead?

Clearly, studies and graphs like this are just sources of liberal bias!!!

 

Graph Data Source: John Schmitt, 2013
Graph Found Via: Huffington Post

NOTE:  This graph was featured on the Rachel Maddow show in November 2013,  nine months after we published it here. We would like to thank Rachel Maddow for finally catching up to the excellent reporting here at Liberal Bias.