Today, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report that states--due to the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA)--the US labor market will feature two-million fewer jobs over the next ten years. I think it's important to note that we're not talking about two million fewer job opportunities (which would result in a net increase in unemployment) but two million fewer employed persons. Specifically--individuals who choose underemployment or unemployment in order to keep Medicaid coverage under the ACA. The first thing that jumped out at me in this report is the sharp contrast between how the CBO presents these lost jobs and how they were predicted by critics: Critics of the ACA claimed that increased costs for "small businesses" would directly translate to decreased job creation. The CBO report flatly states that the 1.5-2.0% deduction in total hours worked attributable to the act will be:
--almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor--
Let's play the blame game below the Pillsbury Pumpkin Crescent Roll.
First off, let me make one thing clear: I am not calling shenanigans on the CBO, or implying that the CBO is being biased or dishonest. That's the sort of thing the other side does. When attempting to holistically evaluate the impact of a change as massive as the implementation of the ACA, every other factor must be viewed as a control--unchanging.
In other words, because of benefits now available to them under the affordable care act--individuals are going to self-select out of the job market as it exists today and as its current trends run forward... and I don't think you're looking at the whole picture unless you include an honest appraisal of the labor market shit-show... especially for individuals in the unenviable position of choosing between limiting their own productivity and providing for their families in the most efficient way possible.
The "free market" response to this decision is to blame the ACA, and because the CBO report is agnostic towards the freedom of the market, it more-or-less does the same thing. But perhaps it's time for businesses large and small to do some of the soul-searching that companies like Costco have done, and understand that a little bit of TRUE self-regulation goes a long way.
There are writers on this site who I think of as more "radical" than myself (which isn't to say I think they are out of bounds) who write thought-provoking pieces on income inequality and how it's shaping the future of the progressive movement specifically and our nation in general. Some suggest aggressive protests, some just want to sign petitions and write letters. I believe if you look at the arc of history in this country, the electorate will "eventually" start to put butter over guns.
What do you think? Is there the potential for changes to the labor market to offset the CBO's predictions? How can progressives drive those changes--both via regulation (lobbying the government) and direct intervention (spending money with specific businesses)...
I work in Healthcare... I'm not an economist... so these are very heady topics for me. I am confident that more thorough and nuanced critiques of today's report are already in the works at DailyKos. But I am ALSO confident that right now a group of GOP strategists are sitting around a table crafting "Obamacare Costs US 2 Million Jobs" type ads... and I think a sensible assessment of current labor policy and practice can be our guide in responding to those ads.