Last week, as reported by The Hill, Carney:
…dismissed reports that some employers were hiring more part-time employees because of the president’s signature healthcare law.
“The data reflects that there is not support for the proposition that businesses are not hiring full-time employees because of the Affordable Care Act,” Carney told reporters.
Perhaps Carney’s statement can be made true if we parse it Clinton-style, seeking his definitions of “data” and “is”. Perhaps Carney only accepts Harvard studies (or some such), and very likely, there hasn’t been one.
But the phenomenon of employers replacing full-time employees with part-time, due to Obamacare, is real and growing. The same article notes:
employers have added more part-time employees — about 93,000 a month — in 2013 than full-time workers — averaging about 22,000 per month. That’s a reversal from 2012, when employers hired 31,000 part-time workers and 171,000 full-time ones per month.
And how do we know it’s due to Obamacare? Well, I can’t think of any other (real) reason that Obama wants to delay his own employer mandate; can you? Or a reason why labor unions suddenly hate Obamacare?
But we don’t have to infer the cause. Comments and stories have abounded in the media lately, of businesses switching to part-time employees directly because of Obamacare’s insurance mandate for full-timers. Here is one recent commentary.
And even Uncle Ben says the Fed has been hearing it from the countless businesses which report into it:
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke acknowledged that Obamacare regulations have caused employers to hire part-time workers, rather than full-time employees…
“[O]ne thing that we hear, you know, in the commentary we get at the FOMC is that some employers are hiring part-time in order to avoid the mandate there,” Bernanke told Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., during a House hearing. “So we have heard that.”
So, Jay: Can the baloney, OK? There doesn’t have to be an academic study on something for it to be true (and widely known).