Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
That's very true.
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. If the economy is stable or growing that person leaving the workforce would likely translate into a job for someone else.
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.
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
|
"To assume people choosing to leave the workforce so they can get on the government doll is offensive"
Yes, it offends me to. I am deeply offended at the idea that people would manipulate their circumstances to receive welfare that they don't need.
However, that I find it offensive, doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. So I'm not sure what your point was.
"My neighbor worked up until retirement at a very low paying job"
God almighty, Spence...the CBO didn't declare that
no one will choose to continue to work, they estimate that 2.5 million people (less than 1% of the population) would do so. So the fact that you know a guy who wouldn't behave that way, in no way refutes what the CBO said.
Spence, I might say that 70% of black babies are born out of wedlock. You cannot refute that, by saying that you know a black guy who has a kid, and he's a good dad. You sound like one of those idiotic celebrities who defend tyrants, like Dennis Rodman, defending a dictator just because Rodman never personally witnessed any atrocities.
You're better than this...