Skip to main content

View Diary: No, the latest CBO report doesn't say Obamacare kills jobs (152 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Not what it says - See Appendix C - pg 127 (9+ / 0-)

    Saying the ACA doesn't cost jobs is putting an insanely good spin on the report.  The report says that the CBO previously estimated that the equivalent of 800,000 full time jobs would be lost due to the ACA.  They based this on the assumption that ACA would not impact average number of hours worked.  They are now raising that estimate to the equivalent of 2.3 million full time jobs (avg number of hours in a full time job x 2.3 million).  

    The CBO says some losses will be because people choose to cut back (whether because they no longer need to work the extra hours for health insurance, or because they have an economic incentive to reduce their incomes to get subsidies - is not analyzed).  It doesn't say the majority will fall into these categories - it didn't analyze that issue (last paragraph pg 127).

    But, when the diary says there is no evidence that hours are being cut or jobs lost that seems to fly in the face of what the report does say.

    Also, the report says the vast bulk of the jobs that aren't created will be lower wage jobs - which would seem to hurt the poor and under educated.

    •  Yes, I saw the same thing. Too much spinning (7+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cardinal Fang, MGross, Pi Li, naus, hmi, AlexDrew, VClib

      going on here.

      This gives a LOT of ammunition to people running against incumbent Senate Democrats like Mary Landrieu here in Louisiana.  

      I think people like here are extremely unhappy right now.  

    •  But I would balance that loss against (0+ / 0-)

      higher paying jobs (e.g. data analytics) from companies using as a platform for innovation.

      Shall we go? Yes, let's go.

      by whenwego on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 11:25:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  CBO says the reductions come from worker choice (6+ / 0-)

      It says that by 2024, employment will be reduced by 2.5 million FTEs because workers will choose to work less. People will be able to retire early and still have health insurance, people in expansion states will be able to work less and still have Medicaid, people who have low-wage jobs will have less of an incentive to work more hours because if they do their exchange subsidies will be reduced.

      CBO estimates that the ACA
      will reduce the total number of hours worked, on net,
      by about 1.5 percent to 2.0 percent during the period
      from 2017 to 2024, almost entirely because workers will
      choose to supply less labor
      —given the new taxes and
      other incentives they will face and the financial benefits
      some will receive.
      (p. 117)
      •  it doesn't say retire (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        naus, hmi

        it says 'supply less labor'. If i understand this, there are thresholds that when you cross them, you subsidies get sharply reduced. Working more hours could mean less take home money.

        So people will choose to work less to avoid losing thier subsidies. That does no sound like a well designed provision of the law.

        •  Supply less labor may mean retire (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MPociask, kefauver

          or it may mean work fewer hours.

          I agree that the subsidy "cliff" is a poorly designed provision of the law. But that bad design is not the main driver of the lower employment the CBO predicts, according to their report.

        •  As a 60 yr old baby-boomer, (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MPociask, Reepicheep, kefauver

          I'm planning to "supply less labor" by early semi-retirement because I can now buy affordable health insurance. My old full-time job is being advertised as we speak.

          Yes, just an anecdote. But I'd guess there are tons of people just like me out there.

          Almost everything you do will seem insignificant, but it is important that you do it. - Mahatma Gandhi

          by NLinStPaul on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 01:22:31 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Labor (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        It could also mean I choose to cut my income because then I'll qualify for gov't subsidies.  Economically that's kind of perverse.

        •  Not really. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MPociask, FishOutofWater, kefauver

          From an economic standpoint, it is not perverse at all.  You provide labor for a price, and you can negotiate for that price.  If the person paying for your work really needs you for more hours, they should pay you what that is worth. They burden is on the employer to make it worth your while.  

          "YOPP!" --Horton Hears a Who

          by Reepicheep on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 04:55:39 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Actually, the CBO report is neoliberal nonsense (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          There is no labor shortage in the U.S. and there will continue to be no labor shortage. The reason we have poor job creation is a lack of demand because the middle class is under continuous downward pressure. Over the past 30 years, every time we get close to full employment, corporations, with assistance from the government, ship jobs overseas and hire more undocumented workers.

          look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

          by FishOutofWater on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 05:36:31 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site