Lost Jobs

[Fly Rod]

No one talking about Obamacare and losing 2 million jobs and going to a 29 hour work week....white house says it will give families more time together...Bull Crap....people that R not on subsidies in healthcare will have to get 2nd job....if U R use to making 20 bucks an hour that is 800 bucks a week...29 hour work week is 580 bucks...what happens to the person or persons that have a mortgage and car payment......U have to work 2 jobs so U would have to see the family less.

Is Spence on vacation????....

[PaulS]

I bet you didn't actually read the CBO report. Did you?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I bet you didn't actually read the CBO report. Did you?

It's not that the report said that employers were going to lay off 2.5 million workers.

WHat the report said, is that millions of Americans will recognize the incentive of working fewer hours, and thus taking advantage of the Obamacare subdsidy (Paul, do you know who pays for the subsidy?).

In other words, people will be faced with a choice...work more hours, and pay for healthcare on my own (which should be precisely what we encourage people to do), or work fewer hours so that income goes down, and thus take advantage of the public subsidies. The CBO estimates that millions of Americans will voluntarily cut back their hours (in other words, millions of Americans will voluntarily impoverish themselves), and thus rely on public subsidies that the rest of us have to pay for.

In other words, Obamacare will increase, by millions of people, the number of folks s#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g on the public teat. This has the added bonbus for Obama, of buying quite a few votes, as these parasites won't want to hear a conservative candidate tell them to get their lazy asses back to working 40 hours a week like everyone else has to do.

Here's what I don't get...Bill CLinton is considered a hero among liberals, he enjoys a 70% approval rating. DO liberals not remember what Clinton did after the Gingrich revolution? Clinton kicked millions of poor people off welfare, and told them to go back to work, which is exactly what they did. SO shouldn't Bill CLinton be championing the same conservative economic principles that helped make him popular?

The CBO report confirms what many have suggested, that Obamacare was one morew way of increasing the number of people dependent on the federal government, and decrease the number of people who are self-sufficient. We are providing financial incentives for people to choose to be less self-reliant. Paul, if that's a good thing, the benefit escapes me. The benefit I see is more votes for liberals who want to keep public assistance pumping.

Earth to Obama...we can't all be on public assistance. We can't tax the top 5% high enough, to provide freebies to everyone else. For Christ's sake, this is not higher order calculus, this is grade school arithmetic.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

It's not that the report said that employers were going to lay off 2.5 million workers.

WHat the report said, is that millions of Americans will recognize the incentive of working fewer hours, and thus taking advantage of the Obamacare subdsidy (Paul, do you know who pays for the subsidy?).

So I'm guessing he didn't read the report. Heard about it on Fox news?

Yes, I know what a subsidy is and I know what the report said were the reasons for the decrease in people working.

[buckman]

Love it. The White House loved the CBO when the report showed positive things but now that the CBO is showing reality.....no more love
Keep lowering the bar ....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Keep lowering the bar ....


At first the White House went into damage-control mode, arguing that many of the cancelled plans were "junk" insurance and consumers would be better off with the broader coverage available through the health care law's new insurance markets.
But soon Obama was forced to reverse course, urging insurers and state regulators to allow policyholders to keep their existing plans for an additional year. Most states complied with the request.
Now the administration is considering adding more years to this extension to avoid another wave of problems if rates on the exchange climb too high and people are left without an affordable coverage option. Health insurers are supposed to submit by May the rates they want to charge on the exchanges next year.
AP story by Tom Murphy
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by buckman

Love it. The White House loved the CBO when the report showed positive things but now that the CBO is showing reality.....no more love
Keep lowering the bar ....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And the reality is that there is not going to be 2.5M fewer jobs (like Fox, the Rep. leadership and Fishpart have been saying)

Didn't the right always dispute the CBO's estimates until it finally suited them? So I guess the right's bar was already low.

There are enough reason's for people not to like it without making things up.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

And the reality is that there is not going to be 2.5M fewer jobs (like Fox, the Rep. leadership and Fishpart have been saying)

Didn't the right always dispute the CBO's estimates until it finally suited them? So I guess the right's bar was already low.

There are enough reason's for people not to like it without making things up.

Most of us know reality Paul. The CBO reports are now proving the "Right" can say " I told you so"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

So I'm guessing he didn't read the report. Heard about it on Fox news?

Yes, I know what a subsidy is and I know what the report said were the reasons for the decrease in people working.

Paul, what do you really think of a government program that effectively encourages 2.5 million people to voluntarily cut back to less than full time, so that they can receive public assistance? Isn't that a BAD thing? How could that not be considered a bad thing? This is by far Obama's most significant achievement, and the effect is to encourage people to be less productive, and to make people more reliant on the feds?

[Fishpart]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

make people more reliant on the feds?

This is the most important point of your explanation and precisely why Obama wanted so desperately to pass Nationalized Healthcare.

[PaulS]

I think you think I support it. Is it bc when people post asinine statements about it that have no basis in fact, I ask questions and try to point out the truth (remember I work in HC so I have a slightly better understanding than some of the members here)?

I have seen 2M mentioned and 2.5M mentioned for different timeframes.

The CBO stated some people will leave their jobs bc they no longer need their employer sponsored health ins. (prob. a good thing for a # of reasons) and some will leave bc of the subsidy and will think it isn't worth it for them to work (a bad thing). I don't think they broke out the 2 #s. I think the CBO stated that stop loss for insurers will actually collect like $6B more from insurers in the 3 years it will be inforce then what it would pay out.

Your question to me should be the heart of the issue and waht should be discussed, not the screwed up roll out (what difference does it make now) or taking a point from the CBO and twisting what was said (which is what has been covered in the press for 2 days now).

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Fishpart

This is the most important point of your explanation and precisely why Obama wanted so desperately to pass Nationalized Healthcare.

So that was the goal?

[Fly Rod]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I bet you didn't actually read the CBO report. Did you?

I listened to the CBO twice....once before he thought the news media messed it and then when talking to reporters directly.....he changed a few things the 2nd time to make it sound better....now UUUU tell me how people working 11 less hrs. making the same amount of hourly wage can only work one job and afford a mortgage and car payment and I realize they that R on subsidy more then likely do not own a home or work.

And I do realize that the loss is over about a 10 year spread so that is somewhere 210,000 + or -

[Fly Rod]

maybe the CBO was an imposter...the first tally was a few months ago was about 800 thou....maybe I read his lips wrong...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

So that was the goal?

To get more people dependent on the feds, and therefore more people who vote for dems.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

To get more people dependent on the feds, and therefore more people who vote for dems.

That is a joke so I'm out,
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

That is a joke so I'm out,
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don't let the doorknob hit you on the way out. Why are most liberals opposed to something as obvious as securing our borders? Same reason, they want to put more dependent folks on the voting rolls. Paul, I asked if you thought it was good policy to incentivize millions to freely impoverish themselves and get on the public dole? You dodged that, I see. Gee, anyone care to venture a guess why you chose not to answer?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Fly Rod]

I can understand why 800 thou or 2 million may drop out that is if they earn up to 400% of the federal poverty level....but if their income risers above, their sudsidy will decrease and if they make over the poverty level they would see their insurance rise so I could see where this would discourage working and staying under the fed guide line.

Every county in the country will have a different poverty level I do believe....I may be a little confused since this was not mentioned on fox to my knowledge...I will have to stop watching Restaurant Impossible to catch up on the truth...LOL

[Raider Ronnie]

Is this like Nance Pelosi saying waiting hrs longer in the hospital emergency room will allow you to make a bunch of new friends.

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

No one talking about Obamacare and losing 2 million jobs and going to a 29 hour work week....white house says it will give families more time together...Bull Crap....people that R not on subsidies in healthcare will have to get 2nd job....if U R use to making 20 bucks an hour that is 800 bucks a week...29 hour work week is 580 bucks...what happens to the person or persons that have a mortgage and car payment......U have to work 2 jobs so U would have to see the family less.

Is Spence on vacation????....

[Redsoxticket]

Ones lost job is another's gain. I don't get it, if a company requires x employees but now has (x-1) then that company will be looking to hire one person.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Redsoxticket

Ones lost job is another's gain. I don't get it, if a company requires x employees but now has (x-1) then that company will be looking to hire one person.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The people who choose to work less, are doing so, SPECIFICALLY because they'd rather work less and therefore qualify for federal assistance. Imagine that 2.5 million Americans who are employed, decided that they'd rather quit and collect unemployment checks. The effect will be to add millions to the group of folks receiving public assistance. The folks filling the void will be picking up a few hours here and there, it's not a zero sum game, the net effect is hugely subtractive. Except, in the sense that it will create more people dependent upon public assistance, which is the same thing as saying it will create more people who will vote for the Democrats.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Redsoxticket

Ones lost job is another's gain. I don't get it, if a company requires x employees but now has (x-1) then that company will be looking to hire one person.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Only if its profitable . Our company pays 100% health insurance ...for now. But I know the inevitable is coming.
When we are short on help now ,we do not hire, we use temporary labor force.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Fly Rod]

Like Buckman our insurance is paid 100% by the company.

Here is my question: If Essex County federal income is 58,000 and I can make up to 400% to qualify for Obama care can I makeup to $232,000.00 and be eligible for Obamacare??

[spence]

Originally Posted by Redsoxticket

Ones lost job is another's gain. I don't get it, if a company requires x employees but now has (x-1) then that company will be looking to hire one person.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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

[Jim in CT]

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

You're missing a salient point. If the CBO is correct, millions of Americans will voluntarily and intentionally impoverish themselves in order to qualify for public assistance. Spence, we can't ALL be on the public teat. It's better for people to be self-sufficient.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You're missing a salient point. If the CBO is correct, millions of Americans will voluntarily and intentionally impoverish themselves in order to qualify for public assistance. Spence, we can't ALL be on the public teat. It's better for people to be self-sufficient.

Spence is deeply offended you even dare bring that up.... Apparently you reach a point in your liberal transformation where everything is offensive
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

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...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by buckman

Spence is deeply offended you even dare bring that up.... Apparently you reach a point in your liberal transformation where everything is offensive
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and that's the truth. Anytime anyone questions the Messiah, anytime someone isn't inclined to kneel at Obama's feet and kiss his ring, is deeply offensive to his supporters worshippers.

[detbuch]

QUOTE[=spence;1031128]
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.

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 economy is stable or growing that person leaving the workforce would likely translate into a job for someone else.

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?

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.

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?"

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[/QUOTE]

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."

I don't know if 10 or 20 years down the road the ACA will make health care more "affordable" or not. Nor if constant government tweaking and forcing the "economy" to perform in prescribed ways will make life worthwhile. Maybe it will. Of course, "worthwhile" is in the eye of the beholder. So far, socialist systems and schemes have constantly needed just a few more tweaks or "programs" to make life better. So far, it hasn't been quite enough--often worse than what was replaced, but perpetual (permanent) progress, I guess, works that way. There is always room for "improvement." There will always be bumps along the way, but eventually, in the visible bright horizon, all will be well and just and fair--and affordable.

Though I'm not sure, I have very strong doubts about that. I like that adage that life is more interesting, meaningful, in what happens as you struggle to reach a goal than it is when that goal is reached. And that it's less meaningful if the struggle is eliminated by a third party (government) and the goal is defined and provided by that party.

But that's just "old school." And the Brave New World of the Big Society casting its net of benevolence over all has now become necessary in order for the personal satisfaction of each to be realized--and affordable. In that new world order, everyone will have the leisure to achieve the great, or wonderful, or satisfying works that make society the utopia which was only previously dreamed of. We can all be artists, or builders, or scientists, or just lay back and enjoy watching the wonders unfolding before us. Of course, if some, or more likely many or most, become watchers, either that will be OK and affordable, or the government can create a program to make them more productive.

Debating whether the ACA, or the endless other federal "programs" for our well being will "work" seems to get nowhere. "Sides" have been solidified, and arguments, rationalizations, butt horns without changes of opinion. If something "works" or not seems to be a matter of opinion, with various "facts," substantially connected to the arguments, or not. Or something always to be determined--the argument eventually forgotten in some distant future when the "program" has metastasized as a fact and merely to be reformed to be made right. Ad infinitum.

I don't know if the ACA will eventually "work." Some will see that it does. That will be a matter of opinion on what "work" is. And that is the divide. It may "work" for those receiving benefits. It may not for those who pay for it. It may "work" for those who prefer to be free to spectate without the discomfort of having to provide the freedom, and it may not for those who wish to be free on more personal terms, and must provide the entertainment for the rest, and be free from the government coercion to do so in the limited prescribed way that the government dictates.

[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