Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Actually, ACA had a very strong positive impact on employment, because it drove employment in the healthcare sector. There are a lot of reports and studies validating that the ACA was a very effective jobs bill, and, because healthcare is one of the most disbursed industries in the country, had a positive effect all over, from rural Indiana to urban LA.

It did not drive employment among small businesses generally:

"A new survey of 745 small businesses shows little change in the size distribution of businesses between 2012 and 2016, except among businesses with 40–74employeesin a way that is closely related to whether theyoffer health insurance coverage. Using measures of both size and voluntary regulatory compliance, the paper links these changes to the Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate. Between 28,000 and 50,000 businesses nationwide appear to be reducing their number of full-time-equivalent employees to below 50 because of that mandate. This translates to roughly 250,000 positions eliminated from those businesses."

https://www.mercatus.org/system/file...g-paper-v1.pdf

"The Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate has at least modestly led to a rise in involuntary part-time employment, according to a Goldman Sachs study released Wednesday.

“We would estimate that a few hundred thousand workers might be working part-time involuntarily as a result of the Affordable Care Act,” said Alec Phillips, an economist at the investment bank, in a research note.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ob...nds-2016-06-08

However, to your point, there has been an uptick in HC jobs:

"About 500,000 of the jobs added to the health-care sector since 2012 were the result of Obamacare significantly increasing the number of Americans with insurance coverage, a new analysis says."

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/23/5000...man-sachs.html

A lot of people got HC, a lot of people got HC jobs. Trade off: A lot of other people remained underemployed.

Looks like a wash, but I cannot calculate that because to do so we'd need to compare multiplier effect of what's lost against multiplier of new HC consumption and jobs.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I'm sure you use headhunters, but you must absolutely demand that they bring you diverse candidates. We requested resumes for a mid-level IP attorney and every single candidate was white. The partner was shocked and asked the headhunters to perform the search again looking for diverse candidates. He was floored when the hh brought him resumes for 6 candidates of color, each of whom was more qualified than the previous candidates the hh had brought him. When he asked why they weren't included the first time around, the answer was that these assholes look at diversity like a skill to be checked off on their list of what to search for.

This business is just shit.

TM

We don't use HHs. These are patent guys?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Because the people below them, most especially immigrants and people of color, are not deserving, while they are.

How much of it is weakness, however? It seems to me that, much like Trump himself, the angriest folks are the sort who lack the balls to punch up. They punch down.

Xenophobia is a big part of it, but might this also be the world's biggest bullying epidemic? But strangely, spearheaded by kids who were probably the bullied more than the bullies.

Ask yourself, have you met a Trump nut who could kick your ass? They're weak, bitchy. I want to say there's a Biff from Back to the Future element to this, but I think it's more "angry-wanna-be-Biff-who's-found-a-savior."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Ask yourself, have you met a Trump nut who could kick your ass?

If you'd only start inviting some of us to your cocktail parties maybe we can start engaging on this sort question.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

When it's taxing people to give benefits to someone else where there's no multiplier, it is zero sum.

That's just not true. If you assume that people are all similarly situated and that the person who gets the benefit would otherwise just reach into their pocket and produce the same sum of cash to get the same benefit, OK then, but that is not reality. Money has a diminishing utility as you have more of it. Also, many government benefits do not have commercial equivalents.

Can't respond to the rest right now.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It did not drive employment among small businesses generally:

"A new survey of 745 small businesses shows little change in the size distribution of businesses between 2012 and 2016, except among businesses with 40–74employeesin a way that is closely related to whether theyoffer health insurance coverage. Using measures of both size and voluntary regulatory compliance, the paper links these changes to the Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate. Between 28,000 and 50,000 businesses nationwide appear to be reducing their number of full-time-equivalent employees to below 50 because of that mandate. This translates to roughly 250,000 positions eliminated from those businesses."

https://www.mercatus.org/system/file...g-paper-v1.pdf

"The Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate has at least modestly led to a rise in involuntary part-time employment, according to a Goldman Sachs study released Wednesday.

“We would estimate that a few hundred thousand workers might be working part-time involuntarily as a result of the Affordable Care Act,” said Alec Phillips, an economist at the investment bank, in a research note.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ob...nds-2016-06-08

However, to your point, there has been an uptick in HC jobs:

"About 500,000 of the jobs added to the health-care sector since 2012 were the result of Obamacare significantly increasing the number of Americans with insurance coverage, a new analysis says."

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/23/5000...man-sachs.html

A lot of people got HC, a lot of people got HC jobs. Trade off: A lot of other people remained underemployed.

Looks like a wash, but I cannot calculate that because to do so we'd need to compare multiplier effect of what's lost against multiplier of new HC consumption and jobs.

That's still not the sum total of all impacts. You've got studies there looking primarily at whether employers game the 50 employee limit or the part time/full time differences (the answer, by the way, is yes, someone always games every line you draw). It's not looking at, for example, downstream results from increased sales of med devices or software. I appreciate you taking the time to find these studies, did you run across some other ones in your searches taking a more wholistic view of total impact of ACA? I think you'll find its not a wash at all, but a net positive.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

One of the changes I've pushed here is that our process for each search is (i) no headhunters on day 1; (ii) listing first goes out to (a) the bar associations, including each of the minority bar associations in the area; and (b) a mailing list of our own network, which I've made sure includes every attorney of color and every woman attorney who has worked for, been a client of, or had other significant contact with us that I can identify, and postings on social media; (c) law school alumni office bulletin boards; and (d) a broad set of publications. After 2 weeks, if we don't have strong candidates emerging, we go to headhunters. The headhunters are not great for us, they tend to favor the firms with constant associate needs rather than folks like us, who hire two or three associates a year. We've gotten great candidates from minority bar association listings in particular.

If anyone knows of anyplace we should list let me know.

I'm about to hire, and don't think I'll get anywhere without a headhunter. Am I completely off-base?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

If you'd only start inviting some of us to your cocktail parties maybe we can start engaging on this sort question.

I don't invite Trump nuts to my house. The relatives I have who are Trump nuts have gotten into many a row after drinks on the holidays. We've decided no more hosting Xmas and Thanksgiving. They love conservative media and can't help talking about something they read.

You show them Snopes. They get mad. Somebody tells you Snopes is owned by Soros. And off you go to Crazyland...

Like my family wasn't dysfunctional enough already.

I see the Trump nuts elsewhere. They tend to like golf course bars.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

That's still not the sum total of all impacts. You've got studies there looking primarily at whether employers game the 50 employee limit or the part time/full time differences (the answer, by the way, is yes, someone always games every line you draw). It's not looking at, for example, downstream results from increased sales of med devices or software. I appreciate you taking the time to find these studies, did you run across some other ones in your searches taking a more wholistic view of total impact of ACA? I think you'll find its not a wash at all, but a net positive.

I'm inclined to agree. I actually looked for something that got into that broader approach. That's how I wound up with the Goldman study.

But I have this suspicion that HC's multiplier might be smaller or more narrow than we think. I say this as someone with numerous docs in the family. I see a lot of the use of products your describe. But I'm not sure that translates as broadly as putting more dollars in average people's bank accounts, where they will spend it in a variety of places. Seems a lot of HC dollars go into savings (specialists making bank). But I'm just speculating there. There is indeed ample evidence out there from which to make the argument that, in aggregate, the economic impact of ACA is positive.

But as I noted, it comes at a cost to others.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm inclined to agree. I actually looked for something that got into that broader approach. That's how I wound up with the Goldman study.

But I have this suspicion that HC's multiplier might be smaller or more narrow than we think. I say this as someone with numerous docs in the family. I see a lot of the use of products your describe. But I'm not sure that translates as broadly as putting more dollars in average people's bank accounts, where they will spend it in a variety of places. Seems a lot of HC dollars go into savings (specialists making bank). But I'm just speculating there. There is indeed ample evidence out there from which to make the argument that, in aggregate, the economic impact of ACA is positive.

But as I noted, it comes at a cost to others.

You are confusing two different concepts. "Multipliers" are about the dynamic effects of government spending, the follow-on effects on the whole economy. Whether something, government or otherwise, is "zero sum" is a question about the value lost and received on each side of a simple transaction.

[LessinSF]

5 years at AIG was enough (or maybe too much). Friday is my last day. From May 1st through June 30th, I will be living in Hamburg if anyone is passing through.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm about to hire, and don't think I'll get anywhere without a headhunter. Am I completely off-base?

When we do our initial release, we usually get 50-100 resumes in the first couple of weeks. Of those, more than half will be weeded out before I see them as just not fits, but the last two searches we have done we've never gone to the headhunters, and the last time we went to the headhunters we still chose a candidate who came through our own search.

But there are undoubtedly excellent candidates we don't see.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm inclined to agree. I actually looked for something that got into that broader approach. That's how I wound up with the Goldman study.

But I have this suspicion that HC's multiplier might be smaller or more narrow than we think. I say this as someone with numerous docs in the family. I see a lot of the use of products your describe. But I'm not sure that translates as broadly as putting more dollars in average people's bank accounts, where they will spend it in a variety of places. Seems a lot of HC dollars go into savings (specialists making bank). But I'm just speculating there. There is indeed ample evidence out there from which to make the argument that, in aggregate, the economic impact of ACA is positive.

But as I noted, it comes at a cost to others.

I agree that doctor salaries aren't great multipliers. But when you look at healthcare employment in most of the country, community hospitals are usually one of the top employers in almost every county and a top employer of working class and union people. Likewise, if you look at machine shops producing various devices, healthcare oriented ones tend to be higher skill operations less likely to move abroad (FDA regulation helps with that). When 1/5 of GDP goes to healthcare, it's a pretty big, broad industry.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You are confusing two different concepts. "Multipliers" are about the dynamic effects of government spending, the follow-on effects on the whole economy. Whether something, government or otherwise, is "zero sum" is a question about the value lost and received on each side of a simple transaction.

I've always used "multiplier" to refer to any expense (e.g., a doctor's salary can have a multiplier) - is that not right? I know you deal with more economists than I.

I try not to use zero sum, and when I do, I slap myself in the face as hard as possible and tell myself not to do that again.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I've always used "multiplier" to refer to any expense (e.g., a doctor's salary can have a multiplier) - is that not right? I know you deal with more economists than I.

I try not to use zero sum, and when I do, I slap myself in the face as hard as possible and tell myself not to do that again.

If the point of government spending is stimulus, then you care about multipliers. But that's not the prime point of most government spending.