Skip to main content

This week it has been impossible to ignore the news about the Supreme Court’s upholding of almost all the provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the so-called Obamacare law. The ACA will affect our lives and the U.S. economy as a whole in many ways, but what particularly interests me is its impact on jobs.

Therefore, I took instant notice of an entry on The New York Times Economix blog by a regular contributor, Prof. Casey B. Mulligan of the University of Chicago. Prof. Mulligan argues that “the coming Medicaid expansion will reduce employment,” although he holds out hope that some of this can be prevented by the Court’s ruling that states can opt out.

More below the squiggle.

The ACA expands Medicaid coverage to those earning up to 133% of the federal poverty level. Prof. Mulligan’s argument that the ACA will reduce employment is based on these premises:

Able-bodied adults who are currently earning wages below 133% of the poverty level are working mainly to get employer-paid health insurance and will no longer need to work when ACA expands Medicaid coverage (unless governors block it in their states).
Medicaid is a transfer, so even though it creates jobs where the funds are spent, it destroys jobs where the funds are obtained.
Now, here’s what’s wrong with this argument.

The first premise—that low-wage workers are holding jobs merely for the insurance—is based on the unrealistic assumption that all jobs come with health insurance as a benefit. My job does, and Prof. Mulligan’s does, but this benefit is much less assured for jobs held by the working poor. Keep in mind that, for a single adult, the 133%-of-poverty level is just under $15,000 per year. The Washington Post/Kaiser Family Foundation/Harvard University Survey of Low-Wage Workers (PDF), which covered workers earning as much as $27,000, found 27% of them without any health insurance. A 2001 survey by the Commonwealth Fund (PDF) found that, among those earning $10 or less per hour (equivalent to about $20,000 or less per year), only 30% working for a small employer and only 69% working for a large employer were eligible for an employer-offered plan. Still another study (PDF) found employer-paid health insurance in 2005 covering only 23% of workers earning less than $15,000 per year.

But even if some low-wage workers have employer-paid coverage and quit their jobs once ACA gives them Medicaid coverage, does that mean the jobs cease to exist? Especially in the present slow recovery from recession, other workers will happily take these vacated jobs. The Survey of Low-Wage Workers found that health care and health insurance came in fourth among the expenses that respondents had trouble meeting. Funds for their children’s education, transportation costs, and savings for retirement were greater concerns. In other words, low-wage workers need a paycheck for a range of necessities, and employer-paid health insurance clearly is not the only reason they stay in a job or would take one vacated by another worker for whom this is the only concern.

The second premise, that transfer payments are job-neutral, makes sense only on a theoretical level and comes crashing down once you apply it to the realities of health care and the ACA. First, the Medicaid funding is based on progressive taxation, which means that the funds are transferred from the high-earners, who would have spent some of it and saved some of it, in contrast to the low-earners who are spending all of it (on health care). Yes, savings would create investments, which would create jobs, but nowadays more and more of those investments are creating jobs overseas. In addition, those dollars that the high-earners spend would go to a mixture of goods (many imported) and services, whereas the bulk of health-care spending goes to American service workers. In fact, health-care spending supports a lot of low-skill jobs—for example, over 1 million home health aides, with a 69.4% growth projected between 2010–2020. In short, the job effect of a dollar is not identical no matter where it lands in our economy.

Expanded Medicaid spending will boost jobs. I’m still waiting to hear some actual specifics about the replacement plans of those who advocate repealing and replacing the ACA. I don’t find any reasons to expect expanded employment from the platitudes and generalizations I’ve heard to date.

(Cross-posted at Career Laboratory.)

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Thanks for the diary (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    xanthippe2, bfitzinAR, Gooserock

    Prof. Mulligan's analysis is the same sort of... um, I'll use a French term here, garbage, that the Chicago school has been cranking out for years.  That somehow increasing spending on social programs decreases the incentive to work is either simplistic or an insult to the working poor.

    "You're not allowed to sell your countrymen out to multinational financial corporations anymore and still call yourself a patriot." --MinistryOfTruth

    by Kurt from CMH on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 01:05:34 PM PDT

  •  Anyone who thinks low income (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    earners are only hanging on to those jobs because of the (non-existent) health insurance obviously was never in a position to need one.  Rent, electricity, groceries, and transportation to the job all rotate as to which is the most important depending on which one is overdue.  Healthcare only makes that list when somebody is sick.  Expanded Medicaid isn't going to pay the rent, buy the groceries or the car's gasoline, or keep the electricity on.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site