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.
If employers want to hire then why is the TOTAL number of hours going to fall?
No, thats not at all the situation described by the CBO..
The CBO suggested that a company with 10,000 manhours of labor will have about 1.5-2% in loss labor which normally would be filled by hiring 3-4 employees BUT WONT BE because if they were, then the net decrease in total hours would be ZERO..
A Decrease cant take place if the hours are being replaced by new employees. Its not at all complicated so why are you having a difficult time comprehending it?
The CBO doesnt at all say that. The decrease cost is only due to subsidies, but those subsidies need to be paid for.
Tell me how we give more money to taxes while improving the economy. I havent yet learned how to spend the same dollar multiple times.
The first question and answer explains that employees will choose to supply less labor as a result of the ACA.
From the link:
"The reason for the reduction in the supply of labor is that the provisions of the ACA reduce the incentive to work for certain subsets of the population. For example, under the ACA, health insurance subsidies are provided to some people with low income and are phased out as their income rises; as a result, a portion of the added income from working more would be offset by a loss of some or all of the subsidies, which represents an implicit tax on earnings. Also, the ACA’s subsidies effectively boost the income of recipients, which will lead some of them to decide they can work less and still maintain or improve their standard of living. Therefore, some people will decide not to work or to work fewer hours than would otherwise be the case—including some people who will choose to retire earlier than they would have otherwise, and some people who will work less themselves and rely more on a spouse’s earnings. (Many other factors influence decisions about working, including, for example, income and payroll taxes and the cost of commuting and child care. Moreover, under current economic conditions, a substantial number of people who would like to work cannot find a job.)
Because the longer-term reduction in work is expected to come almost entirely from a decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply in response to the changes in their incentives, we do not think it is accurate to say that the reduction stems from people “losing” their jobs."
In other words, people will choose to reduce their labor hours. Some will do that because of the declining subsidies. Others will do it because they will retire earlier than they otherwise would have, and others will do it because they will rely more on a spouse's earnings.
Later:
"ACA also will affect employers’ demand for workers, … both by increasing labor costs through the employer penalty (which will reduce labor demand) and by boosting overall demand for goods and services (which will increase labor demand).”
So labor costs will be higher because of the employer penalty, but ACA will "boost[] overall demand for goods and services," thereby increasing demand for labor.
You may have seen the Congressional testimony of CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf on this report, where he stated that the report's discussion of boosting demand for goods and services is likely to reduce unemployment in the near term.
Do you think that one's access to health insurance should be tied to an employer's insurance offerings? I think it does not make sense and discourages entrepreneurship and risk-taking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
The CBO falls under the White House, why would the President want the CBO to push out a report which says the ACA will be responsible for a loss of total work hours?
CBO is nonpartisan and does, in fact, work for Congress. The director of the CBO is appointed by the Speaker and the President Pro Tem of the Senate.
Oh no. If everybody acquires a skill and moves on who's going to flip burgers then? You understand that we don't want every burger flipper to get an MBA, don't you?
Well I dont mind it when I see 18 year olds flipping burgers to make money to take their girl out, but when a 40 year old does it and then ******* they cant support their family, I have no compassion..
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
Sorry, I understood and tried to be difficult; you called me on it. and you know my next question...
The first question and answer explains that employees will choose to supply less labor as a result of the ACA.
I stopped here because clearly its far too difficult for you to comprehend, so let me try to explain it to you as if I was talking to a 10 year old..
If you work for company X, and then you choose to stop working there, does the company not then decide to replace you by hiring someone else?
Yes, yes they do... So saying that the employees will choose to supply less labor, doesnt explain why once again, those employees are not being replaced..
They clearly are not being replaced, or the NET total hours worked wont be dropping, it would just change who was doing it..
I stopped here because clearly its far too difficult for you to comprehend, so let me try to explain it to you as if I was talking to a 10 year old..
If you work for company X, and then you choose to stop working there, does the company not then decide to replace you by hiring someone else?
Yes, yes they do... So saying that the employees will choose to supply less labor, doesnt explain why once again, those employees are not being replaced..
They clearly are not being replaced, or the NET total hours worked wont be dropping, it would just change who was doing it..
When a low wage worker, let's say a fry cook working 40 hours a week, cuts their hours by 1.5-2%, do you really think that Burger King needs to hire someone to replace the 36 to 48 minutes weekly they are losing? Have you considered the transaction costs of hiring someone to replace that time? Keep in mind that CBO is not stating that all of these people will just stop working. It is saying that total hours will be cut. It attributes the decline to people cutting back their hours and retiring earlier than they would have without ACA.
You think your simplistic argument makes sense, but it does not. At least you are finally acknowledging that workers will choose to supply less labor. Perhaps you will eventually recognize that the reduction in supply does not necessarily mean that demand will decrease.
I also assume that you admit you were wrong about CBO being under the White House, which was a blatantly inaccurate attempt to bolster your claims--not that one should be surprised.
Perhaps you also admit that CBO's Director also testified that ACA will likely decrease unemployment in the near-term.
When a low wage worker, let's say a fry cook working 40 hours a week, cuts their hours by 1.5-2%, do you really think that Burger King needs to hire someone to replace the 36 to 48 minutes weekly they are losing? Have you considered the transaction costs of hiring someone to replace that time? Keep in mind that CBO is not stating that all of these people will just stop working. It is saying that total hours will be cut. It attributes the decline to people cutting back their hours and retiring earlier than they would have without ACA.
You think your simplistic argument makes sense, but it does not. At least you are finally acknowledging that workers will choose to supply less labor. Perhaps you will eventually recognize that the reduction in supply does not necessarily mean that demand will decrease.
I also assume that you admit you were wrong about CBO being under the White House, which was a blatantly inaccurate attempt to bolster your claims--not that one should be surprised.
Perhaps you also admit that CBO's Director also testified that ACA will likely decrease unemployment in the near-term.
So you admit they arent being replaced, which makes me wonder why you are arguing with me when I said they arent being replaced.
not once have I questioned that employees will supply less labor, I've been telling you that FOR FIVE FN YEARS that was going to happen.. I started questioning that crap when the administration started saying that ACA would generate a $1T surplus over the next decade.
Yeah unemployment will go down because PEOPLE WILL STOP LOOKING FOR WORK.. Which once again, makes me ask how the hell are we generating $1T surplus with less people working and more subsidies?
Poverty is one of the country's looking forward to change or ease.And a lot to consider about the causes of this.
Much of our poverty is being imported. Strange that while manufacturing jobs went to China, they opened the borders to the third world and allow millions to pour in who require free health care and schools and food stamps to survive here.
So you admit they arent being replaced, which makes me wonder why you are arguing with me when I said they arent being replaced.
not once have I questioned that employees will supply less labor, I've been telling you that FOR FIVE FN YEARS that was going to happen.. I started questioning that crap when the administration started saying that ACA would generate a $1T surplus over the next decade.
Yeah unemployment will go down because PEOPLE WILL STOP LOOKING FOR WORK.. Which once again, makes me ask how the hell are we generating $1T surplus with less people working and more subsidies?
You stated that employers will hire less and that demand for labor will fall. The first statement is unsupported, as is the second.
You also stated that the government will pay for the declining subsidies by taxing "those who show up for work," which is inaccurate. There is an additional 0.9% increase in the Medicare tax for individuals earning over $200,000 and joint filers over $250,000. And there is an additional capital gains burden on high income individuals. Guess what--we all pay taxes, and our tax money funds the spending of our governments (along with debt). If you are affected by the increased capital gains and/or Medicare tax, then good for you. I'm sure you'll be okay. If you are not, then continue to show up for work without facing new taxes.
Your description of declining subsidies as "welfare handouts" is the distorted talking point. Just because a benefit is provided does not mean that it is a welfare benefit. Keep in mind that the government's subsidy is spending that contributes to the economy. You may dislike it, but don't pretend that you know how the decreased hours, the subsidy spending, and the increased demand for goods and services will impact the broader economy--unless you can produce your Macroeconomics PhD and peer-reviewed papers on the subject.
You have no idea whether Obamacare will have any impact on demand for labor. CBO's analysis suggests that it will reduce unemployment. Have you got better data?
It is simply not true that demand must be fulfilled. It is only fulfilled when there is supply to meet it.
The fact that America postures itself as a place of unequaled opportunity not to mention the excessive American propaganda regarding the myth of our overall superiority calls into question the very presence of poverty in such a ballyhooed culture. I get the idea that some writers of dubious "news" observations think there is some relevance between the "poor" of America as opposed to the "poor" of another nation that compete with our "high living American poor", the supposed "richest of the poor". I'm guessing that some think this is a proof of sorts of the real nature of American poverty, you know-----that we really don't have poverty, well, when compared to.............
My God, have we come to this as something to be considered newsworthy? I guess we now must hold a similar contest as to the relative wealth of America's richest vs those of other nations in order to determine the practical use of such data. Is it any wonder we have such a polarization of values in America when the likes of this "news" author is taken seriously enough to warrant such inquiring commentary as the OP invites? Poverty and it's causes has been studied at the worlds leading universities, the scholarly reviews of these studies have stood up to the stringent standards of research and the findings have little if any relevance to the dimwitted conclusions of a libertarian yokel...
"Approximately 33.1 million adults and 15.9 million children lived in food insecure households in 2012. According to the USDA definition of food insecurity, this means a full 49 million Americans lived in households that struggled to access enough food due to a lack of resources last year. "
"Food Insecurity" is not the same as hunger.
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.
I started questioning that crap when the administration started saying that ACA would generate a $1T surplus over the next decade. 
