Real World Event Discussions

'Obamacare' will reduce US workforce, report finds

POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Monday, February 17, 2014 19:37
VIEWED: 8753
PAGE 3 of 9

SHINYGOODGUY

Thursday, February 6, 2014 12:12 PM

The CBO says:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/02/04/what-the-c
bo-report-on-obamacare-really-found/

"The CBO report actually says that the impact of the ACA will be “almost entirely” due to a decline in labor that “workers choose to supply.” It says explicitly that the ACA’s impact will not be felt as an “increase in unemployment” or “underemployment.”

Let me repeat: a decline in labor that "workers choose to supply"

It says explicitly that Obamacare will NOT be felt as an "increase in unemployment" or an increase in "underemployment."

The key words here are "workers choose" and No increase in unemployment.
I watched a review of the CBO Report where the commentator said that the
unemployment rate will be reduced down to 5.8% sometime in 2021.

The Explanation (for our brethren with reading issues):

A worker's health care is usually tied to his or her job (you with me so far). 1- They work beyond their years to keep that health insurance active
2- They may work longer hours to reach a 40-hour work week (same
reason as above).

With Obamacare; since health care is no longer tied to the worker's employment, but rather to the individual, there's no longer a need to work longer hours or more years to help with coverage. Hence, fewer work hours needed. So it is a reduction in the labor force, if the worker chooses that path, NOT a reduction in jobs. The average Joe is in the driver seat, and not the ever-so benevolent Owner (or keeper of the keys).

Again, because I know how much you guys love repetition:

The work force will choose to reduce the amount of hours they work because it will be no longer necessary.

As the title to this Thread says "Obamacare Will reduce Workforce"

END of Discussion (whoa!, that felt good)

SGG

ELVISCHRIST

Thursday, February 6, 2014 1:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by ElvisChrist:
Note that this isn't employers cutting hours or eliminating jobs that they no longer need done; it's workers not working those hours. The work is still there, so workplaces will actually have to hire more people to do the work that still needs to be done.

So you disagree with this, from the BBC article.

"The CBO said some US businesses may also decide to reduce their workforce to fewer than 50 full-time employees to avoid having to provide health insurance as mandated under the law."

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

Do I?

Are you psychic? Or psychotic? Or just making shit up again?

ELVISCHRIST

Thursday, February 6, 2014 1:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

The needs of the few out weigh the needs of the many.

The GOP mantra.

SIGNYM

Thursday, February 6, 2014 6:22 PM

Quote:
The needs of the few out weigh the needs of the many. -rappy
The GOP mantra. -Elvis

Yes, thank you for pointing that out. If you hadn't pointed out that sweet irony, I would have.

GEEZER

Thursday, February 6, 2014 7:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Cute. "The CBO said some US businesses may..."

Try reading the actual CBO report, and you'll find that it is also full of "probably", "about", "projects", "estimated", "subject to substantial uncertainty", etc.

http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45010-Outlook2
014.pdf

The section concerning Labor Market Effects of the ACA starts on page 117.

Quote:
Note that
Quote:

CBO expects the law to have " small or negligible " effects on labor demand in most parts of the economy. http://www.businessinsider.com/cbo-report-obamacare-discouraging-work-
2014-2#ixzz2sVudJdTb

Actually, the "small or negligible" comment refers to the supply of labor (see page 118 "Effects of the ACA on Supply of Labor"), not labor demand.

"CBO estimates that the ACA will lead to a net reduction in the supply of labor. In the Agency's judgment, the effects will be most evident in some segments of the workforce and will be small or negligible for most categories of workers."

Need to start checking your cites again.

The above is true because anyone making substantially above 400% of the poverty level won't be getting subsidies, and has no incentive to reduce their wages.

If you read "Number and Types of Worker Likely To Be Affected", starting on page 119, you'll see that it's folks who are incentivized by the availability of subsidized health care payments (i.e. folks not making much money) who will be most likely to work less hours. This is folks who are on the cusp of poverty, and may be dissuaded from moving up the economic ladder by fear of loss of the subsidy.

Not sure this is a good thing.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NIKI2

Thursday, February 6, 2014 8:54 PM

I don't think it's a good thing in some respects, either. But I'm weighing the difference between all the people who couldn't get or couldn't afford health insurance, and what we do to fix that. All you're doing is focusing on the potential negatives and trying to make them seem even more than they are.

The CBO also states

Quote:
ACA’s
subsidies for health insurance will both stimulate demand
for health care services and allow low-income households
to redirect some of the funds that they would have spent
on that care toward the purchase of other goods and services—
thereby increasing overall demand. That increase
in overall demand while the economy remains somewhat
weak will induce some employers to hire more workers or
to increase the hours of current employees during that
period.

CBO estimates that, over the next few years, the various
provisions of the ACA that affect federal revenues and
outlays will increase demand for goods and services, on
net. Most important, the expansion of Medicaid coverage
and the provision of exchange subsidies (and the resulting
rise in health insurance coverage) will not only stimulate
greater demand for health care services but also allow
lower-income households that gain subsidized coverage
to increase their spending on other goods and services—
thereby raising overall demand in the economy. A partial
offset will come from the increased taxes and reductions
in Medicare’s payments to health care providers that are
included in the ACA to offset the costs of the coverage
expansion.

On balance, CBO estimates that the ACA will boost
overall demand for goods and services over the next few
years because the people who will benefit from the expansion
of Medicaid and from access to the exchange subsidies
are predominantly in lower-income households and
thus are likely to spend a considerable fraction of their
additional resources on goods and services—whereas
people who will pay the higher taxes are predominantly
in higher-income households and are likely to change
their spending to a lesser degree. Similarly, reduced payments
under Medicare to hospitals and other providers
will lessen their income or profits, but those changes are
likely to decrease demand by a relatively small amount.
The net increase in demand for goods and services will in
turn boost demand for labor over the next few years,
CBO estimates.22 Those effects on labor demand tend to
be especially strong under conditions such as those now
prevailing in the United States, where output is so far
below its maximum sustainable level that the Federal
Reserve has kept short-term interest rates near zero for
several years and probably would not adjust those rates to offset the effects of changes in federal spending and
taxes. Over time, however, those effects are expected to
dissipate as overall economic output moves back toward
its maximum sustainable level. https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1013002/cbo-la
bor-report.pdf

There is a lot that is good and bad in this issue, and nobody can know anything for sure until we're further down the road. Your determination to focus only on the potential negatives, and enhance them without any recognition of the potential positives, or the fact the main issue is that something has to be done, and anything that is done will affect the labor market and the economy, is disingenuous.

I notice you have no desire to address

Quote:
Any alternative policy to significantly expand health coverage will also have income and substitution effects that reduce labor supply. If you give out subsidies for health insurance that aren't tied to employment, you'll create an income effect that makes it easier for people to work less. If you phase out those subsidies, you'll create a substitution effect that encourages people to work fewer hours. (For example, the Republican Coburn-Burr-Hatch Obamacare alternative has

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

GEEZER

Thursday, February 6, 2014 9:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
I don't think it's a good thing in some respects, either. But I'm weighing the difference between all the people who couldn't get or couldn't afford health insurance, and what we do to fix that. All you're doing is focusing on the potential negatives and trying to make them seem even more than they are.

No. I'm pointing out, first, that the CBO's original and revised figures for workforce reduction are quite different. They are.

I'm also pointing out that a lot of the folks who are most likely to go from full-time to part-time work are those close to the poverty level, which the CBO states in their report. Since they get cheaper insurance, it's pretty obvious that there are some benefits to the program, but I personally am bothered by the fact that some folks may be encouraged not to try and advance because their insurance costs will go up.

Everything else is the product of your partisan imagination. Apparently you are conflating what other folks have said elsewhere outside RWED with what I have been saying. This doesn't appear to be limited to you.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

ELVISCHRIST

Thursday, February 6, 2014 11:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Apparently you are conflating what other folks have said elsewhere outside RWED with what I have been saying. This doesn't appear to be limited to you.

I've noticed that as well. You have been quite eager to engage in it as well.

NIKI2

Friday, February 7, 2014 1:41 AM

Quote:
Everything else is the product of your partisan imagination. Apparently you are conflating what other folks have said elsewhere outside RWED with what I have been saying.

I think I was extremely clear:

Quote:
Nobody is saying you misrepresented anything, Geezer, tho' your title obviously highlights the reduction in workforce and your choice of articles doesn't give all the information. But the fact remains that the right has leapt on the CBO report and is broadcasting all over everywhere that "Obamacare Will Cost 2 Million Jobs!!!!", which is a flat-out lie.

That IS what's been coming from the right, whether in carefully-crafted phrases or flat-out lies, and that's what I was pointing out. The article you posted to begin this thread does NOT give all the facts, and I offered some, and you have done nothing (except for this one most recent part of a sentence) but focus on the negatives, as you always do.

"I'm pointing out, first, that the CBO's original and revised figures for workforce reduction are quite different." That is absolutely untrue. You titled this thread "'Obamacare' will reduce US workforce, report finds" and posted an article about same WITH NO COMMENT. Within the article is one statement, "In Tuesday's report, the nonpartisan CBO said work hours would be reduced by the equivalent of 2.3 million full-time workers by 2021. It had previously estimated the health law would result in 800,000 fewer workers." The entire rest of the article is about the reduction in workforce. You didn't "point out" "first" anything about the difference in estimates until an ADDED "ETA" in your second post, and never mentioned it again, until now. Is any of that untrue?

GEEZER

Friday, February 7, 2014 7:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
You titled this thread "'Obamacare' will reduce US workforce, report finds" and posted an article about same WITH NO COMMENT.

And for the second time, That's the title BBC put on the article. It's not my title.

I thought it was an interesting article.

You seem to see it as right-wing attack.

First you say "So they're not saying it will cut JOBS, but cut the WORK FORCE, and I know why."

Then you decide that "The title: "'Obamacare' will reduce US workforce, report finds", give the article a conservative slant.

Is it using "Obamacare"? Because the Business Insider article you cited uses the same term? Is it the word "Workforce" that you say is actually the correct term?

Then you complain "The subheadings: "'Making it worse'" (quoting Boehner), seven paragraphs."

Did you even read the paragraphs? The first five are a recap of the CBO's findings. The next one points out that the report will be "fodder for conservatives, who are expected to make the health law a major issue in November's midterm elections." and the last is a quote from Boehner.

You complain that they mention "glitches that plagued the healthcare website during its October rollout" but that's also in reference to the CBO reports disclosure that less people will sign up. Isn't that news? Should the BBC censor it?

Then there's a paragraph quoting Carney, so one Republican quote and one Democratic quote.

----------------

Take off your partisan glasses for once and go back and read the BBC article. Actually read it, don't assume that since it says "Obamacare", or since I posted it its anti-ACA.

Then read the section of the CBO report cited above that refers to the effect of the subsidy on workforce participation.

Show where the BBC report is actually wrong about anything, using cites from the CBO report.

----------------

As for always focusing on the negatives - not so.

Quote:
And it's a good deal for some, Using the Kaiser Subsidy calculator Kiki introduced in another thread, we have a 60 year old woman living in Albany Ga. and making $47,000, paying $12,264 for insurance with no subsidy. If she drops her income by $2,000, to $45,000, She'd receive a $7,989 subsidy, for a net $5,989 benefit.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."