This is potentially troubling. http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_new...h-estimates-of-job-loss?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=1 Report fuels Obamacare debate with estimates of job loss By Tom Curry, NBC News The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office gave new fuel to the debate over the Affordable Care Act Tuesday with its estimate that the law will lead to the eventual loss of about 2.5 million full-time jobs. In its annual budget and economic forecast the agency also said that the ACA or Obamacare will reduce the total number of hours worked by about 1.5 percent to 2 percent from 2017 to 2024. Even though total employment will increase over the coming decade, the CBO said, “that increase will be smaller than it would have been in the absence of the ACA.” CBO director Douglas Elmendorf told reporters that the analysis done by his agency’s experts “led us to conclude that the effect of the Affordable Care Act on labor supply would be a good deal larger than we had thought originally.” In 2011, the CBO estimated the loss of full-time equivalent jobs due to the law would be about 800,000. Elmendorf also told reporters that the employer mandate – the requirement that firms offer health insurance to workers– “will reduce the demand for labor in the short term because employers face this extra cost. It is analogous in some ways to raising the minimum wage.” The CBO report said that “workers will choose to supply less labor—given the new taxes and other incentives they will face and the financial benefits some will receive.” Both sides of the Obamacare debate used the new findings to buttress their arguments, with House Speaker John Boehner saying that Republicans had argued for years that “the president's health care law creates uncertainty for small businesses, hurts take-home pay, and makes it harder to invest in new workers. The middle class is getting squeezed in this economy, and this CBO report confirms that Obamacare is making it worse.” But Obama spokesman Jay Carney said the CBO analysis was incomplete. The budget office, he said, did not take into account the beneficial effect of slower health care cost growth due to the ACA, “Experts have estimated that slower growth in health costs due to the ACA will cause the economy to add an additional 250,000 to 400,000 jobs per year by the end of the decade,” he said. “Moreover, CBO does not take into account positive impacts on worker productivity due to the ACA's role in improving workers' health, including reduced absenteeism.”
Nope! That is not what the CBO is saying. The GOP Has It Wrong: Obamacare Won't 'Cost' 2 Million Jobs What the CBO really found was that the numbers of hours worked would decrease under Obamacare, by roughly 1.5 percent to 2 percent between 2017 and 2024. The report then translated those lost hours into the equivalent of 2.5 million jobs. But that doesn't mean 2.5 million jobs are going to disappear from the U.S. economy. The CBO report, in fact, specifically undermines that claim. Those lost hours will "almost entirely" be the result of people choosing to work fewer hours because of Obamacare -- not because they lost their jobs or can't find a full-time job. The estimated reduction stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply, rather than from a net drop in businesses' demand for labor, so it will appear almost entirely as a reduction in labor force participation and in hours worked relative to what would have occurred otherwise rather than as an increase in unemployment (that is, more workers seeking but not finding jobs) or underemployment (such as part-time workers who would prefer to work more hours per week).
That's why I said potentially troubling. A net decline in labor and underemployment because of ACA I don't think is a good thing. This is one of the things to keep an eye on as ACA develops.
It also could result in people being freer, not being tied to ****ty jobs and being able to take more risk at entrepreneurship. You know? Have more FREEDUMBS
Fast food fry cook confronts Obama for getting his wages cut due to Obamacare. Of course Obama blames Republicans. Unbelievable, his lack of accountability. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/f5rzRMCmeeE?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
It's not even potentially troubling. It's entirely a GOOD thing. People who employed solely because they need work to get insurance will be free to retire or start their own business or do whatever else they want to do. If the jobs themselves are necessary, then someone else currently unemployed will be able to fill them. No one at all loses in this scenario. Conservatives should be thrilled - the entire basis of John McCain's philosophy towards health care was to separate it from employment. This basically is what is happening here (and it's a very good thing).
It just raises the cost of employment by making it cost more for the employer and giving labor sellers subsidies and thus incentive to not work. How is that a good thing?
It actually is a dumbing down acceptance of moar jobs as always indicative of economic progress. In fact, a lot of jobs are crap jobs that cost the government money. Republicans want to give you moar jobs! Except, they're crap jobs for barely minimum wage with no benefits but hey a job is a job! We need to ditch the unemployment stats as a measure of jobs and use some type of quality jobs index or something. A job that allows you to pay the rent, feed your kids, put gas in your car, buy health insurance, etc.
So if that's true, this must be true as well. The Buried Lede In The CBO Report: Obamacare Will Raise Wages If (as CBO predicts) the decline in work is driven almost entirely by a decline in labor supply, the upshot will be very different. Employers will be left holding the bag economically. Workers will choose to work fewer hours; since firms won't be any less interested in hiring, they'll have to pay more per hour to get those workers in the door. The positive wage effect should be concentrated among low-skill workers, who will face the greatest discouragement to work from Obamacare, and therefore will be able to command the greatest wage increases in order to keep working. More broadly, Obamacare alters the employer-employee relationship in a way that empowers employees. When an employee is dependent on his job not just for a wage but for health insurance, he is less able to threaten to leave if he doesn't get a raise. Severing the work-insurance link strengthens the employee's hand in bargaining — which is bad for employers and good for workers. the revolution will not be televised
I'm a democrat and an Obama supporter but I think you are trying to spin this. The fact is that Employers are forced to provide medical insurance for full time employees then they simply cut their hours to make them part time employees. Even Democrats are saying the ACA is troubling in this particular area. Not troubling as a whole, but troubling here, I think that's pretty clear.
There have been a couple of studies already that show this isn't happening. Fact Check: Employers are not cutting back workers hours because of Obamacare
You're not reading it correctly - underemployment is when people want to work more (or in a different job) yet are unable to do so for lack of opportunity (demand). The CBO report indicates that the ACA will cause people to voluntarily work less reducing supply - it's the opposite of underemployment. Really, if the current oversupply of labor persists (hopefully it doesn't) - the ACA could end up reducing the unemployment rate because hte participation rate will voluntarily go down.
Really - how is a rise in wages a good thing?! Probably because we all get wages. My spending is your income, your spending is my income - both of these go up.
Are you suggesting it's not a good thing that people won't be stuck in a job that they don't want but have just to get insurance? It's bad to open up jobs to people who actually want them? How is that bad for employers OR employees?
America is a better country when our citizens are coerced into working because of a desperate need for healthcare.
