Lost Jobs

[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.

[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 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

[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

[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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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

You have maintained a couple of times that she would have quit her job if the ACA had been in effect, not to get on the government dole, but in order to keep health insurance. And that to assume quitting her job in order to get on the government dole is offensive. This is an example of how progressive use of language fundamentally transforms our culture.

First, to quit the job which enabled her to have insurance in order to keep her insurance makes no sense. Unless she quits in order to get a better job. But quitting work altogether is not getting a higher paying or better job. Quitting work altogether in order to qualify for a government subsidy to pay for insurance would, to a rational mind, be quitting the job to receive government assistance in paying for insurance. Government assistance is, if I'm not mistaken, a form of government dole. In our current day progressive think, this is a rational, admirable decision. It is to be lauded. That's what the dole is for. It is no longer merely for indigents, but for the majority, common person, who may need a little hand-up not a hand-out.

And what used to be a factor in American culture, shame, is eradicated in current progressive America. It used to be a mark of poor character to receive dole if you could possibly make do yourself. People worked in ways that were "uncomfortable," and even at subsistence wages to avoid that mark. And most, eventually, worked out of that status into a better one. That is the "ethic" which made viable the economic mobility that this country is, or was, famous for. It used to be referred to as the "work ethic."

Somehow, maybe as a result of the usual consequence of success taken for granted, we have assumed that old ethic is no longer truly necessary. Not if it is too onerous. A great nation's success should lead to an easing of conditions for all of its citizens. Leisure time, ease and comfort in living, playful enjoyment, should not have to be strived for in difficult or demeaning ways, but entitlement to it should be a new liberating "ethic" defined and assisted, if not provided, by government.

So the word "dole" is antiquated. "Offensive." Even "assistance" is a bit off color. "Subsidy," or even more so, "a right," is a more appropriate way to inoffensively speak. If there is a government program which can provide "subsidy" it is your "right" to it--even your duty to use it. This is the privilege of all (except for those who don't qualify). It is fair, and just, and the right of Americans to demand it. Some of these new privileges are even granted to many who are not actually Americans.

So let us not "offend." Those in the past who didn't consider their life "going down the drain" when they struggled to provide for themselves rather than receive what used to be called a dole, were naïve. The pride they took in self-sufficiency was overblown ego to the detriment of their own well-being. Never again should any of us have to struggle as they did. We are greater than they because of understanding what is truly important in life. And our country will flourish and become greater in this knowledge.

As an aside, when Representative Diane Blake asked the CBO director what effect the ACA would have on the economy, his response was "it is the central factor in slowing economic growth." So let's see--the ACA slows economic growth, it creates a disincentive to work, and it reduces income--But it creates more leisure time, time spent with family, a better life for those who are qualified. Eventually, even the rest of us may become qualified. The labor supply can be reduced to the small, ignorant, percentage of those who have a false pride. Not sure of what that does to other government programs to make our lives better, i.e. social security, Medicare, the ACA itself, food stamps, social and corporate welfare in general, government bailouts of failing businesses who can't compete without adequate labor supply and rising inflation--what happens to the tax base necessary to provide all the goodies? Not to worry. Some new progressive solution will evolve. Life is too good to waste it on work.

And this new "ethic" can totally replace that old one, as progressive ideology replaces all that other musty old stuff like constitutions, rule of law, individual sovereignty, personal responsibility, and all those ancient associations which impede our "modern" administrative State's ability to define our liberty and provide it for us.