[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