Lost Jobs

[detbuch]

QUOTE[=spence;1031128]
The CBO report didn't say the impact of the ACA would be less jobs, it was that the supply of labor would potentially be reduced.

Isn't that a distinction without a difference? If there is not enough labor to fill a job, does that job exist? If the business must perform in spite of an unfilled current "job," it distributes the work to its existing labor force, and there is one less theoretical job.

If the economy is stable or growing that person leaving the workforce would likely translate into a job for someone else.

If the reason the person left the workforce is because it was more economically rational to do so because he would be better off with government subsidies than by continuing a particular job, wouldn't it be likely that potential employees to fill the job would come to the same conclusion and take the government subsidies rather than the job? And isn't that one of the reasons the CBO claimed would be the cause of less jobs?

Also consider that with the baby boomers increasingly leaving the workforce the supply of labor will be dropping even more. This is a far bigger challenge to economic growth than the impact of the ACA.

So why add the impact of the ACA on top of that? Is the sensible point of view "oh its going to be bad, so why not make it worse?"

To assume people choosing to leave the workforce so they can get on the government doll is offensive to say the least. My neighbor worked up until retirement at a very low paying job -- across the state -- just to keep the health insurance for her and her husband. Had the ACA been in effect she would have quit over 10 years previous...that's a lot of life gone down the drain.

-spence[/QUOTE]

Aren't you saying that if the ACA had been in effect she would have quit over 10 years previous in order to get on a government subsidy (dole) rather than continuing at a very low paying job? Are you offended by that--to say the least? And it is very interesting that you characterize their lives as going down the drain those 10 years. That seems to be the underlying, if not explicit, progressive message that without government assistance life is little worth living. Or, at least, needed to make life worthwhile--except, of course, for the "rich."

I don't know if 10 or 20 years down the road the ACA will make health care more "affordable" or not. Nor if constant government tweaking and forcing the "economy" to perform in prescribed ways will make life worthwhile. Maybe it will. Of course, "worthwhile" is in the eye of the beholder. So far, socialist systems and schemes have constantly needed just a few more tweaks or "programs" to make life better. So far, it hasn't been quite enough--often worse than what was replaced, but perpetual (permanent) progress, I guess, works that way. There is always room for "improvement." There will always be bumps along the way, but eventually, in the visible bright horizon, all will be well and just and fair--and affordable.

Though I'm not sure, I have very strong doubts about that. I like that adage that life is more interesting, meaningful, in what happens as you struggle to reach a goal than it is when that goal is reached. And that it's less meaningful if the struggle is eliminated by a third party (government) and the goal is defined and provided by that party.

But that's just "old school." And the Brave New World of the Big Society casting its net of benevolence over all has now become necessary in order for the personal satisfaction of each to be realized--and affordable. In that new world order, everyone will have the leisure to achieve the great, or wonderful, or satisfying works that make society the utopia which was only previously dreamed of. We can all be artists, or builders, or scientists, or just lay back and enjoy watching the wonders unfolding before us. Of course, if some, or more likely many or most, become watchers, either that will be OK and affordable, or the government can create a program to make them more productive.

Debating whether the ACA, or the endless other federal "programs" for our well being will "work" seems to get nowhere. "Sides" have been solidified, and arguments, rationalizations, butt horns without changes of opinion. If something "works" or not seems to be a matter of opinion, with various "facts," substantially connected to the arguments, or not. Or something always to be determined--the argument eventually forgotten in some distant future when the "program" has metastasized as a fact and merely to be reformed to be made right. Ad infinitum.

I don't know if the ACA will eventually "work." Some will see that it does. That will be a matter of opinion on what "work" is. And that is the divide. It may "work" for those receiving benefits. It may not for those who pay for it. It may "work" for those who prefer to be free to spectate without the discomfort of having to provide the freedom, and it may not for those who wish to be free on more personal terms, and must provide the entertainment for the rest, and be free from the government coercion to do so in the limited prescribed way that the government dictates.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Isn't that a distinction without a difference? If there is not enough labor to fill a job, does that job exist? If the business must perform in spite of an unfilled current "job," it distributes the work to its existing labor force, and there is one less theoretical job.

If the existing labor force already had the capacity to do the job it likely wouldn't have existed in the first place. If the employer needed the labor to run their business they would likely hire a replacement.

Or they could retool processes and reduce the job through increased efficiency, but this is a normal course of business.

If the reason the person left the workforce is because it was more economically rational to do so because he would be better off with government subsidies than by continuing a particular job, wouldn't it be likely that potential employees to fill the job would come to the same conclusion and take the government subsidies rather than the job? And isn't that one of the reasons the CBO claimed would be the cause of less jobs?

It's a big assumption to think everybody is just itching to get on the gravy train. Some may, but there's no way to really estimate this.

Also, the CBO number wasn't really a number of lost jobs, they estimated a number of reduced hours of labor supply. To be honest I'm not sure how they could even predict this with any accuracy.

So why add the impact of the ACA on top of that? Is the sensible point of view "oh its going to be bad, so why not make it worse?"

There's a different between a total number of people able to work, versus some that may reduce hours. Definitely from the employers perspective.

Aren't you saying that if the ACA had been in effect she would have quit over 10 years previous in order to get on a government subsidy (dole) rather than continuing at a very low paying job? Are you offended by that--to say the least? And it is very interesting that you characterize their lives as going down the drain those 10 years. That seems to be the underlying, if not explicit, progressive message that without government assistance life is little worth living. Or, at least, needed to make life worthwhile--except, of course, for the "rich."

That's some serious spin. In my neighbor's case she would have left work to be able to spend more time at home, not to access a government benefit.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

If the existing labor force already had the capacity to do the job it likely wouldn't have existed in the first place.

If, according to the CBO, the reduction in the potential for two & a half million jobs is mostly from less people choosing to seek work (drop in the labor supply), how are those non-workers going to pay for their necessities and luxuries and insurances? If government subsidies provide for most of that, then isn't government policy greatly responsible for the decreased labor supply?

Larger populations create opportunity for greater production and jobs, which means economic growth. The portion of the population who choose not to participate in the process proportionately decrease growth. If those who are being subsidized by government create a demand for production but don't provide a reciprocal workforce to fulfill necessary production there will be less goods than the demand requires. Which will cause a rise in prices. That is, inflation will be fueled by an influx of fake money (government subsidy) which is not backed by the value of labor or trade commodity.

That is, in direct response to your assertion, an existing labor force has "the capacity to do the job" if that force is adequate to fulfill demand. When reduced labor supply cannot provide the required labor force, the demand cannot be met.

If the employer needed the labor to run their business they would likely hire a replacement.

That can only be done if labor was willing. If a willing worker could be hired to replace an unwilling one, that would merely be a trade in places--the one on dole would work and the one who had worked would then be on dole. No gain, just the same low growth status quo and no more money collected by the public treasury to pay for the dole.

And if government policy made it more rational, economically, to collect subsidy than fill the job, why would someone else be eager to fill it--unless their unemployment span was over and they didn't have government health care subsidy.

Or they could retool processes and reduce the job through increased efficiency, but this is a normal course of business.

Yup. A job would be "lost."

It's a big assumption to think everybody is just itching to get on the gravy train. Some may, but there's no way to really estimate this.

I guess one way to solve it is to remove the gravy train.

That's some serious spin. In my neighbor's case she would have left work to be able to spend more time at home, not to access a government benefit.

-spence

I thought you said that if the ACA had been in effect at the time, she would have quit. Would that have been to access the government benefit? If the government benefit was not the reason for quitting, she could have left work to spend more time at home at any time she wanted. Most of us would like to quit not for a government benefit but to spend more time at home. I guess, with the ACA, not that it would be the reason, we should be expecting a whole lot more to do so. Would that be the loss of the equivalence of 2.5 million jobs the CBO referred to. With this line of thinking, the loss could be a lot greater. But, then, the economic shrinkage, the demand for products that couldn't be met by a shrinking labor force, and the very unattractive taxes which would have to be levied to make up for it might cause some to rethink.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I thought you said that if the ACA had been in effect at the time, she would have quit. Would that have been to access the government benefit?

She continued to work to maintain their family health insurance, her husband was a self employed contractor and didn't have that benefit.

Has nothing to do with potential government perks.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

She continued to work to maintain their family health insurance, her husband was a self employed contractor and didn't have that benefit.

Has nothing to do with potential government perks.

-spence

Well, if no government perks would have anything to do with quitting, then it sounds like she needed to work to supplement the household income since her husband wasn't making enough to buy adequate insurance. Sounds like something worthwhile and to be proud of rather than, as you say "a lot life going down the drain." Good role model for the kids. Good for the "economy." And financially good for the family since she must have made much more than required to pay her premiums.

Sounds like she might have benefited from allowing interstate insurance purchasing and tort reform and true competition among insurers. Of course, I'd go a lot farther than that. More like eliminating third party pay for health care except for those who might want to invest in some catastrophic plan. I don't see the necessity of creating a monstrosity such as the ACA. And given its various restrictions and qualifications, even some in situations like hers might find insurance too expensive.

But that's small potatoes. The rest of my post which you skipped was more germane to the CBO discussion.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

It's a big assumption to think everybody is just itching to get on the gravy train. Some may, but there's no way to really estimate this.


-spence

The CBO said that 2.5 million people would manipulate their situation to get on the gravy train. That's less than 1% of the US population. That's hardly suggesting that "everybody" wants to get on the gravy train. 1% is a lot less than "everybody", isn't it?

"there's no way to really estimate this."

Translation...when the CBO's conclusions do not paint Obama in a favorable light, we must dismiss the CBO's ability to do quantitative analysis.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The CBO said that 2.5 million people would manipulate their situation to get on the gravy train.

Fail.

-spence