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.
Thats not what I said it says.. It says the EQUIVALENT of 2.5 million jobs to be lost due to LOST HOURS.. the total is nearly 92,000,000 hours A WEEK in lost productivity.
Do you know the difference between losses, and equivalent losses?
Doesnt sound like it..
No, that does not translate to lost productivity. You are spinning that in. Labor demand will continue. It may even increase in recreation and leisure time areas as more people have more time to relax while being supported by the taxpayers. In short, it means that productive people like me will have to work harder and longer to pay the bills for the growing ranks of the moochers. I will have to become even more productive.
Thats not what I said it says.. It says the EQUIVALENT of 2.5 million jobs to be lost due to LOST HOURS.. the total is nearly 92,000,000 hours A WEEK in lost productivity.
Do you know the difference between losses, and equivalent losses?
Doesnt sound like it..
Err, post #55, I believe you can be quoted as saying "Your own link says there will be a loss of 2.5M jobs", but hey, please continue ....
No, that does not translate to lost productivity. You are spinning that in. Labor demand will continue. It may even increase in recreation and leisure time areas as more people have more time to relax while being supported by the taxpayers. In short, it means that productive people like me will have to work harder and longer to pay the bills for the growing ranks of the moochers. I will have to become even more productive.
The CBO report says there will be a NET LOSS in labor. Those working will indeed have to do more in less time, but thats not the point of the thread, its to discuss the missing 92,000,000 hours a week being projected by the CBO.
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
no we arent, we just dont think the fact that people are choosing to cut back on their hours so they can get more welfare is something to be celebrated.
I thought you were concerned about wealth inequality?
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
If I decide to work 5 hours less a week so you can give me $5,000 in subisides, YOU are being forced to work more or pay higher taxes to afford the susidies..
If you have 92,000,000 missing hours a week (i.e. the equivelant being discussed), at $10 an hour thats $50B a year lost in the GDP..
If you lose $50B a year from the GDP, you have less employees needed to produce. Its why the hours arent being made up. So the bs about "higher wages" is just bull crap just like Obama promised $2500 a year premium drops to result in higher salaries.. Its garbage..
You just LOST $50B from the GDP, which LOWERS the demand, and thus lower salaries, not higher.
To the Repubs, the example of "job lock" being a bad thing until it has now become a good thing is sad. They are becoming so funny it makes one real bad for the Country until they can be replaced.
To the Repubs, "job lock" was a bad thing until it has now become a good thing. They are becoming so funny it makes one real sad for the Country until they can be replaced.
ACA hasnt unlinked the job/health care relationship
To the Repubs, the example of "job lock" being a bad thing until it has now become a good thing is sad. They are becoming so funny it makes one real bad for the Country until they can be replaced.
Obamacare is for people who cannot get insurance.
They are not the job locked.
They are the old and sick and p/t employed.
The CBO said this loss of hours will hit the low wage earners the hardest.
Now why would the CBO say that if these people are choosing to not work ?
No work = less taxes = less revenue for Uncle Sam
And "they never saw it coming"
Guess you don't need those new jobs created or that increase in min wage now.
People would rather stay home.
This will definitely close that income gap between the poor and middle class for sure.
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.
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.
Feel better?
