In response to
"To the extent that these companies already provided healthcare, the cost is really not dramatic. There are also costs to maintaining additional"
by
pmb
|
I didn't even really understand Ender's post. I guess he was saying that 50 people working 30 hours is more expensive than 100 employees working at 15
Posted by
Qale (aka Qale)
Oct 22 '12, 14:31
|
Which doesn't make much sense. Removing Obamacare from the entire equation, it costs a hell of a lot more to hire, train, and maintain a workforce of 100 than 50, regardless of how many hours they work.
|
Responses:
|