Quote:
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.