Skip to main content

View Diary: CBO director: Obamacare won't kill jobs, it'll create them (104 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Actually those are two separate issues (0+ / 0-)

    1) the ACA will increase labor demand in some sectors (yay!).

    2) It will also provide incentives to reduce labor force participation because of the phase in of the subsidies which make full time and part time employment less appealing.

    •  No, will 'reduce SUPPLY of EXISTING labor' but NOT (0+ / 0-)

      DEMAND for labor, so will = more hiring to fill the demand.

      Its basic supply-demand economics.  Not rocket science.  Don't let yourself be hypnotized by 'buzz words' that have little real meaning at the margins.  

      •  Two separate issues (0+ / 0-)

        again, these are not the same pool of people or jobs. 2.5 million of the very poor will wok less due to the incentives of heath care subsidies and the penalty of losing that subsidy with more work.

        The demand side comes for jobs in health care in some sectors.

        •  Doesn't matter if different pools, aggregate matte (0+ / 0-)


          And no, the demand is in the labor market generally: it will not be reduced by ACA b/c the demand for goods and services is not reduced by ACA.  The increase in jobs bc of more health care services, greater spending power from subsidies, reduced premium increases, etc., is in addition to the 2 m job openings created by freeing those 'job locked'.

          Now, ask yourself why are some supposedly not Thuglican puppets here so intent on creating a false narrative about ACA killing us all?  And why don't they just stick with their original 'death panel' lies?

          •  You keep missing my point (0+ / 0-)

            1- there are going to be some higher labor demands in some aspects of the health care industry, requiring certain skills and training. That is a good thing.

            2- at the bottom of the wage scale 2.5 million will work less or not all because of a combination of incentives of subsidization and penalties of the loss of subsidies and addition of taxes for woking.

            I am not saying these 'equal out" because they are two separate issues. We (as much as the CBO can predict) that the latter will take place. We do not know what the job increases (or unemployment deceases) will be. But losing out on 2.5 million low wage workers to social welfare and subsidies will put an unanticipated strain on the financial stability of nit just the ACA but other government programs as well.

            •  Hasn't been a job created since social security (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Old Sailor

              let old folks retire forcing us to "lose out on [] million[s] of [] wage workers"!

              Or Medicare.  Or Medicare part D.

              The world was created entire yesterday!

              It's actually getting pretty funny how determined you guys are not to accept simple supply and demand.

              Here's a hint: If there is no drop is labor demand, as the CBO says, then 2.5 m deciding to retire or start businesses or raise their kids = more jobs which must be filled.

              So the increase in # of jobs from ACA is additive, not 'equal out'.

              Or do you like being the only folks presumably opther than Thugs (assuming your not some plant) who haven't gotten this yet?

              •  Nope (0+ / 0-)

                Please save the sarcasm. #1- they are not going to state a business (hens they are out of the labor market). And there are not going to be many "new" retirees due to this- the numbers aren't there. And as for raising kids? Maybe. But the report clearly states:

                "Although CBO projects that total employment (and compensation) will increase over the coming decade, that increase will be smaller than it would have been in the absence of the ACA,"
                Again, there are a lot of positives in the ACA obviously. 15 million less uninsured, a smaller near term deficit, employment demand in some sectors. But to also contributes to an already very low labor participation rate, which, has long term economic consequences. It may well be a good trade off (and I think it can be if handled appropriately). However the argument (spin) that the reduced labor participation is, on its own merits a positive thing doesn't make any sense.
                •  sigh, read front page on this: U.S.News& World Rep (0+ / 0-)

                  ort: "if a few people cut back their hours, there will be more hours for the people who want them", i.e., more jobs and/or longer hours for existing workers.

                  Give it up. I'm right, you Ed Grimley's are wrong but for whatever reason keep insisting ACA = we're "doomed as doomed can be!"  

                  •  I'll stick to facts from the report (0+ / 0-)

                    And its author. Rather than speculative opinion. 2.5 million full time equivalent is hardly "a few". I don't recall anyone touting this stat as a selling point until this week when it was announced to much surprise.

                    I certainly have not engaged in doom and gloom rhetoric on this issue. Like I said save the juvenile  sarcasm.

    •  Speaking to issue #2 (0+ / 0-)

      I'm a walking, talking anecdote for that one.

      I turned down a job as part-time staff at what can be described as a major university because their crap insurance would force me to drop my CoveredCA policy and take theirs, for the 4 months that I'll be in their employ.

      One of the conditions of getting a subsidy is that you must drop your policy and take anything that an employer offers.

      It appears that there is a way to get out of having to take your employer's insurance if it exceeds your income by a particular percentage (from the definition of "affordable") but the whole process is so new that I did not want to spend the energy being the first one to get a waiver for employer's coverage based on the excessive cost of that employer's insurance. I had to jump through enough hoops to get the policy, after my old policy was cancelled.

      The $500 a month that the silver-grade coverage would have cost me represented a 45% reduction in pay. I explained it several times to the PhD that wanted to hire me, and to the HR. There's another story in that, me creating, delivering, tutoring, and grading a lab section of students that are paying well over half a million dollars in tuition and fees, but  as I said, it's another story.

      I think what it means is that there are a bunch of jobs that have shit insurance that are going to have to either pay more to get employees, or improve their insurance offerings.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (154)
  • Community (61)
  • Environment (36)
  • Culture (34)
  • Memorial Day (31)
  • Republicans (31)
  • 2016 (28)
  • Elections (26)
  • Civil Rights (25)
  • Bernie Sanders (25)
  • Science (23)
  • Media (22)
  • Climate Change (22)
  • Education (22)
  • Labor (21)
  • Spam (21)
  • GOP (20)
  • Law (20)
  • Rescued (19)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site