Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-05-2014, 07:36 PM
 
2,672 posts, read 2,719,269 times
Reputation: 1041

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
If the demand wasnt decreasing then there wouldnt be a drop in the total number of hours worked

They would be replaced by other employees which would result in a 0% drop, not a 2% drop..

Simply changing who shows up for work, doesnt change the calculation of how many hours are being worked.
Were you ever alive in the 90's? Just wondering because when there werent enough workers around employers raised wages beyond minimum wage and offered 40 hour work weeks and benefits. You are locked into the $ menu at McDonalds. Typical Republican you only think for yourself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-05-2014, 07:43 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,135,461 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by borregokid View Post
Were you ever alive in the 90's? Just wondering because when there werent enough workers around employers raised wages beyond minimum wage and offered 40 hour work weeks and benefits. You are locked into the $ menu at McDonalds. Typical Republican you only think for yourself.
The report once again shows there will be a REDUCTION in labor in the amount of 2%, with a reduction in labor = a reduction in salaries, not an increase..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2014, 07:44 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,135,461 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by borregokid View Post
You do know that the number of baby boomers retiring will dwaf these numbers. What should the Tea Party do..lock the boomers up in shackles and take their SS and Medicare away? Ya gotta love a bunch of Tea Partiers on the dole complaining about people leaving the work force.
So the CBO is lying?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2014, 07:59 PM
 
Location: Metro Detroit, Michigan
29,827 posts, read 24,922,073 times
Reputation: 28529
I heard on NPR that this reduction was going to be a result of people VOLUNTARILY leaving the work force... You know, like the millions of those who have already exited to labor force after two years of unemployment, where they are no longer statistically calculated. Typical Obama cheerleader rhetoric and spin.

But really, when Obama's gang of welfare pimps move in and wants to put food in your refrigerator while paying your rent, energy bills, healthcare costs, etc, NPR may really have a point. Why bother working?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2014, 08:43 PM
 
Location: On the road
2,798 posts, read 2,678,476 times
Reputation: 3192
You should probably read the actual report, rather than just read the media uptake on the report.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2014, 09:03 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,135,461 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlabamaDem View Post
Where does the CBO say any of the bold ?
the equvilant of 2.3 million full time jobs being lost..

2.3 million jobs * 40 hours a week = 92,000,000 hours per week lost.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2014, 09:35 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,135,461 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlabamaDem View Post
The CBO report never once says those hours will be lost, it says these specific people will not work those hours, It does not predict whether or not someone else will pick those hours up of if it will be as you say "lost".

You were making an assumption, one that your source material does not do itself. That is the point I am trying to make.

in short, the CBO did not say it, you did.
Wrong..

The CBO says

"CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the total number of hours worked, on net, by about 1.5 to 2 percent during the period from 2017 to 2024, almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor—given the new taxes and other incentives they will face and the financial benefits some will receive," said the report."

The TOTAL includes EVERYONE not just specific individuals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2014, 09:52 PM
 
1,199 posts, read 735,034 times
Reputation: 609
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Wrong..

The CBO says

"CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the total number of hours worked, on net, by about 1.5 to 2 percent during the period from 2017 to 2024, almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor—given the new taxes and other incentives they will face and the financial benefits some will receive," said the report."

The TOTAL includes EVERYONE not just specific individuals.
Even by your own quote people are deciding to work less, not being forced to work less. So many people work jobs they hate or full time due to health insurance. So many people postpone retirement (even if they have the means to support themselves) because they cant get insurance and don't want to risk their health because they are uninsured or face financial ruin. And if this is the case, that labor will still be needed, correct? A shrinkage will allow people who want to work to have higher wages, because there is a shrinking pool of labor. The same demand of labor is there, but there is less supply of labor. Sounds like a win win for people who want to work
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2014, 10:00 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,135,461 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by cxr89 View Post
Even by your own quote people are deciding to work less, not being forced to work less. So many people work jobs they hate or full time due to health insurance. So many people postpone retirement (even if they have the means to support themselves) because they cant get insurance and don't want to risk their health because they are uninsured or face financial ruin. And if this is the case, that labor will still be needed, correct? A shrinkage will allow people who want to work to have higher wages, because there is a shrinking pool of labor. The same demand of labor is there, but there is less supply of labor. Sounds like a win win for people who want to work


Oh for the love of god

YOU deciding to work less, doesnt reduce the amount of work an employer has, so YOU deciding to work less, must normally be made up by other employees.

If you work 40 hours a week, and you DECIDE to work only 20, this doesnt mean the employer can function with only 20 hours of labor, they must then take on another employee to work 20 hours to make up the difference.

But thats not what the CBO says will take place, they said again

"CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the total number of hours worked, on net, by about 1.5 to 2 percent during the period from 2017 to 2024, almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor—given the new taxes and other incentives they will face and the financial benefits some will receive," said the report."

Do you know what the word "NET" means?

The amount of workers will be REDUCED by 1.5-2%, and it doesnt matter one bit if its by choice of the employee or not. The net effect on the economy is the same. A reduction in employee hours is a reduction in employee hours, and negativelly impacts the economy if those hours arent being made up by others.

Add in less employees working, to now more handouts, and this does what to the budget?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2014, 10:10 PM
 
488 posts, read 1,177,116 times
Reputation: 285
Only when the obamabots run out of other peoples' money will they realize that there ain't no more free stuff to be had. Maybe then they will realize all their social engineering experiments don't work. But I doubt it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:02 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top