Subscribe in a reader

Buy Conservative Advertising

Wikio - Top Blogs

Find the best blogs at

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

No one but the author bears any responsibility for the non-advertising content on this blog. AND PLEASE NOTE: the author neither necessarily uses nor endorses any product advertised on this blog.

« Cracker Jacks with caffeine | Main | Two on why online retail is beating the brains out of brick-and-mortar »

December 09, 2012

"Where to eat, not eat"

Blogger advises boycotting firms that "are cutting back on employees and employee hours to avoid paying for healthcare".

I say patronize the heck out of them


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Economics-wise, what is interesting is that some firms that did not previously pay for their employee health care would now do so. What matters is total employee compensation (wages, benefits, etc.). We'd expect the value of employee work to equal their (after-tax) total compensation package. Since workers are not more productive today than they were before Obamacare, it is economically logical for some workers to be laid off entirely. Do the other firms (that keep the workers despite their higher cost) have some "slack"? Why? Maybe these firms can change the nature of the work employees do: ask them to take on more responsibilities, etc. I don't know much about labor economics, but I'm fascinated by this puzzle. Has it got to do with some sectors being less competitive (economic rents), or having a harder time finding and training specialized employees?

Ted Craig

Automation in U.S. restaurants is way behind that in Europe, in part because labor is cheap. That will now change. Expect to see kiosks as fast food restaurants, waiters using tablets at full-service places. And fewer jobs as a result.


I hope the writer's amazingly clueless tone will alert readers to the dubiousness of his reasoning. Whatever one's thoughts about minimum wage laws or health care benefits, how can the opening sentence convince anyone?

"Several restaurants are laying off employees, needlessly, as a form of passive aggressive snit in objection to Obamacare."

?!? This sentence is so ignorant of the most basic principles of economics or business that I don't know where to begin.


Just remember, if you favor unions and a high minimum wage you must also believe that having no job is a better deal than having one that pays less than some bien pensant who has never, ever had to meet a payroll and make a profit thinks you should earn.

The Hostess employees are finding this out.

I guess with the help of the idiots at that blog workers in the fast food and family dining restaurants will be next.

[And I notice that none of those telling us how great the Swedish local family-owned restaurants are tell us how much they actually pay and how many who work there are family members, etc. Running a family restaurant is no bed of roses, either.]


I wonder is Obamacare the death knell of illegal immigration?

If low wage jobs become more scarce, and our economy in general continues to slump, what will happen to all the people coming here to seek a better life? And how about Obama's huge support among Hispanics? Did any of them have a clue about unintended consequences?

Mr Evilwrench

And that thing goes by the name of "Science Blogs"? Must be run by the same group that think only leftards can support science.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Powered by TypePad
Member since 07/2003

Shelfari: Book reviews on your book blog