Re: Rep. Keith Ellison on ObamaCare-Job Losses: More Time for Americans to Cook Dinne
I posted the link to the CBO report. So yes, I did not post the actual report. You're correct.
You can't have it both ways my friend. You can't say that the CBO is wrong, but use their information to support your stance.
Choosing not to work a second job is absolutely up to the employee. Choosing not to work overtime is absolutely up to the employee (most of the time).
My problem is solely the purposeful misinterpretation of the CBO report by you and conservatives. Whether you believe the CBO's report or not doesn't matter to me. I respect your opinion though.
Lets be completely upfront...I dont trust ANY government agency to be truthful. I certianly dont trust people who's jobs and careers and livelihood depend on kissing the ass of those they are responsible to report on.
Now...I dont expect you to go back and reread the thread because frankly...it shouldnt be that important to you to dedicate that kind of time to (and I mean that in a positive way). But the fact is that with the first defender of Ellisons words I asked him to support his comments by providing the report, and not some kneejerk response. Silence. The second...same thing and not only silence but anger and personal attacks. Third...same. Forth. Same. You were I believe the fifth and the only one of ANY of them that offered a substantive rebuttal. Of you I asked you to provide the REPORT. I figured that after all...people that wade in defending the comments surely have read the actual report. They ahdnt and it is obvious. I finally said to hell with it and looked up the report. I read what the report said regarding jobs and the ACA. The fact is that the report DOES attribute 2-2.5 million in jobs and manhours lost directly related to the ACA and it gave two reasons. The first was because people would choose to work less because they didnt need to work as much. The second was that people would choose to work less because if they worked mre, the provisions of the ACA would be fiscally punitive (increased taxes). Then comes the manipulation and dancing.
Look...lets be real. The ACA isnt going to be around in 2024 when the final estimates are expected to be realized. Second, the CBO estimates are tripe. Their own words and reality show that they have millions fewer enrolled than what they projected, and yet, they project surplus in revenues vs decreases. OK...set THAT aside. They estimate that while they have a small fraction of enrollees currently that it should all change and be close to goals by March...the open enrollment period. Sure...OK...take THAT on faith, ignore the numbers and set THAT aside. The CBO has underestimate the new enrollees in government provided care. OK...set THAT aside.
The meat...
"The ACA includes a range of provisions that will take full effect over the next several years and that will influence the supply of and demand for labor through various channels. For example, some provisions will raise effective tax rates on earnings from labor and thus will reduce the amount of labor that some workers choose to supply. In particular, the health insurance subsidies that the act provides to some people will be phased out as their income rises—creating an implicit tax on additional earnings— whereas for other people, the act imposes higher taxes on labor income directly. The ACA also will exert conflicting pressures on the quantity of labor that employers demand, primarily during the next few years."
"The reduction in CBO’s projections of hours worked represents a decline in the number of full-time-equivalent workers of about 2.0 million in 2017, rising to about 2.5 million in 2024."
"Although CBO projects that total employment (and compensation) will increase over the coming decade, that increase will be smaller than it would
have been in the absence of the ACA. The decline in full-time-equivalent employment stemming from the ACA will consist of some people not being employed at all and other people working fewer hours"
and here is where it goes totally political and wonky...
"The estimated reduction stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply, rather than from a net drop in businesses’ demand for labor, so it will appear almost entirely as a reduction in labor force participation and in hours worked relative to what would have occurred otherwise "
Hogwash. ASSUMING their estimates are correct, the ABSOLUTE REALITY is that as an employER...my employee requirements are NOT dictated by how many hours my employees choose to work. If there s a demand or need for labor...I WILL fill that demand. If there is NOT a demand, JOBS have been adversely impacted. There is no way around that reality.