ObamaCare expected to lead to loss of nearly 2.3 million US jobs, report says

[tlongII]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/04/obamacare-expected-to-lead-to-loss-nearly-25-million-american-jobs-report-says/

The longterm effect of ObamaCare on the U.S. economy took a grim turn Tuesday with the Congressional Budget Office issuing a revised projection that nearly 2.5 million Americans will be lost from the nation’s workforce over the next 10 years.




As a result, budget experts say President Obama’s healthcare overhaul will lead to a reduction of 2.3 million jobs that people will abandon because they can get insurance outside of the workplace.

Following the release of the report, House Speaker John Boehner said the report showed how “the middle class is getting squeezed in this economy.”

The report drew immediate reaction from GOP lawmakers, including House Speaker John Boehner who said the report indicates ObamaCare is only making it harder for middle-class Americans to survive in the bad economy.

Others, like Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., weighed in.

“ObamaCare is only making things worse,” Ryan said in a written statement. “This costly law is not only pushing government spending to new heights, it is disrupting coverage and leaving millions of Americans worse off.”

The budget office says jobs will also be lost because employers may choose to hire less full-time workers or reduce the hours of their staff.

In 2010, the CBO projected ObamaCare would lead to about 650,000 fewer jobs. Tuesday’s new 2.3 million estimate is significantly higher.

The report states ObamaCare will also lead to a reduction of the net number of total hours worked by as much as 2 percent in the period from 2017 to 2024. It states that “lower-wage workers” will see the biggest reduction in the number of hours worked.

The agency also reduced its estimate of the number of uninsured people who will get coverage through the health care law.

The budget experts now say about 2 million fewer people will get covered this year than had been expected, partly because of website problems that prevented people from signing up last fall when new markets for subsidized private insurance went live.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, a ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, called the report “devastating” to the millions of Americans seeking employment.

“A direct threat to the long-term health and prosperity of our nation, this law must be repealed,” Hatch, R-Utah, said in a statement. “Its impact and consequences are too great.”

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan said the report indicates ObamaCare is making things worse for Americans.

“This costly law is not only pushing government spending to new heights; it is disrupting coverage and leaving millions of Americans worse off,” Ryan, R-Wis., said.

However, the White House focused on the report's claim that the loss of jobs will not be due to employers cutting back, but due to Americans choosing to voluntarily leave the workforce. White House spokesman Jay Carney said in a statement the report proves ObamaCare is allowing Americans to be "empowered" to make such a choice.

"At the beginning of this year, we noted that as part of this new day in health care, Americans would no longer be trapped in a job just to provide coverage for their families, and would have the opportunity to pursue their dreams," he said. "This CBO report bears that out, and the Republican plan to repeal the ACA would strip those hard-working Americans of that opportunity."

Carney also says the report does not take into account the estimate by experts that lower health care costs due to ObamaCare will lead to thousands of jobs being added to the economy annually.

The report also predicted the U.S. budget deficit would fall to $514 billion this year, down substantially from last year and the lowest level by far since President Obama took office five years ago.

[ElNono]

Non-Fox version (AP), including some other aspects of the report:

http://www.ajc.com/news/ap/labor/new-report-budget-deficit-to-drop-to-514b/ndCR3/

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Wake me up when a viable alternative is proposed, and repeal and do nothing is not viable.

[SnakeBoy]

Non-Fox version (AP), including some other aspects of the report:

http://www.ajc.com/news/ap/labor/new-report-budget-deficit-to-drop-to-514b/ndCR3/

:lol


But the White House said the possible reduction would be due to voluntary steps by workers rather than businesses cutting jobs — people having the freedom to retire early or spend more time as stay-at-home parents because they no longer had to depend only on their employers for health insurance.

http://gifs.gifbin.com/072013/1374772698_spinning_the_dog.gif

[ElNono]

Severing the employee-health insurance nexus is good news, IMO. It's part of the old system that hid from consumers what insurance actually cost (and healthcare in general).

[boutons_deux]

Jobs will not be lost, but “some people might decide to work part-time, not full time, in order to keep getting health care subsidies. Thus, they are reducing their supply of labor to the market.”

In other words, people will be able to work less without the fear of losing their health insurance, which is fantastic. Mothers and fathers will choose to stay home with their kids and workers will have the freedom to start businesses and seek educational opportunities.

“Obamacare alters the employer-employee relationship (http://www.businessinsider.com/obamacare-will-change-how-you-work-and-retire-2013-9) in a way that empowers employees,” Business Insider‘s Josh Barro wrote, (http://www.businessinsider.com/the-buried-lede-in-the-cbo-report-obamacare-will-raise-wages-2014-2) explaining how the law will help decrease income inequality.
Meanwhile, the other news in the report contradicts nearly every talking point Republicans have used against the law. Not only does it decrease the deficit, the CBO found that “there is no compelling evidence that part-time employment has increased as a result of the ACA.”


If increasing the workforce is the party’s goal, let’s just get rid of Social Security and Medicare so grandma stops lounging around and gets a job.


Or if they really wanted to grow the workforce, Republicans could pass the Senate’s immigration bill. The CBO predicts that this one piece of legislation (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44346) would cut the deficit, grow wages and increase the labor force by 6 million in the next decade.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/gops-latest-anti-obamacare-talking-point-bunk/

Fox/Repugs will obviously, inevitably propagandize "obamacare is a job killer" for months as their PRIORITY for 2014 and 2016 elections is that ACA is a disaster.

[Th'Pusher]

So if the suy of labor decreases and the demand for labor remains constant, what happens?

[boutons_deux]

So if the suy of labor decreases and the demand for labor remains constant, what happens?

if the demand for labor is "serious", then the demanders will have to pay more to attract supply, "in theory".

[boutons_deux]

Freeing Workers From the Insurance Trap

The Congressional Budget Office estimated on Tuesday (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/05/us/politics/budget-office-revises-estimates-of-health-care-enrollment.html?hp) that the Affordable Care Act will reduce the number of full-time workers by 2.5 million over the next decade. That is mostly a good thing, a liberating result of the law. Of course, Republicans immediately tried to brand the findings as “devastating” and stark evidence of President Obama’s health care reform as a failure and a job killer. It is no such thing.

The report estimated (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45010-Outlook2014.pdf) that — thanks to an increase in insurance coverage under the act and the availability of subsidies to help pay the premiums — many workers who felt obliged to stay in a job that provided health benefits would now be able to leave those jobs or choose to work fewer hours than they otherwise would have. In other words, the report is about the choices workers can make when they are no longer tethered to an employer because of health benefits. The cumulative effect on the labor supply is the equivalent of 2.5 million fewer full-time workers by 2024.

Some workers may have had a pre-existing condition and will now be able to leave work because insurers must accept all applicants without regard to health status and charge premiums unrelated to health status. Some may have felt they needed to keep working to pay for health insurance, but now new government subsidies will help pay premiums, making it more possible for them to leave their jobs.

The report clearly stated that health reform would not produce an increase in unemployment (workers unable to find jobs) or underemployment (part-time workers who would prefer to work more hours per week).

It also found “no compelling evidence” that, as of now, part-time employment has increased as a result of the reform law, a frequent claim of critics. Whether that will hold up after a mandate that requires employers to provide coverage, which was delayed until 2015, kicks in is uncertain.

In separate estimates, the budget office predicted that two million fewer people will get insurance coverage in 2014 than it had previously predicted, mostly because of technical problems with the rollout of new insurance exchanges and other implementation glitches. The shortfall includes one million fewer people enrolling in private insurance (the 2014 projection is reduced from seven million to six million) and one million fewer enrolling in Medicaid and a related children’s health insurance program (reduced from nine million to eight million).

Given the rocky start, 14 million additional Americans covered by insurance through the exchanges and Medicaid is sound progress; and the budget office projects a sharp increase in enrollment in 2015 and 2016 and a bigger net reduction in the number of uninsured. Its projections for subsequent years remain essentially unchanged. In 2017, it predicts 12 million more in Medicaid and 24 million more in private coverage through the exchanges.

The new law will free people, young and old, to pursue careers or retirement without having to worry about health coverage. Workers can seek positions they are most qualified for and will no longer need to feel locked into a job they don’t like because they need insurance for themselves or their families. It is hard to view this as any kind of disaster.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/02/05/opinion/freeing-workers-from-the-insurance-trap.html

[tlongII]

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/02/04/22572968-report-fuels-obamacare-debate-with-estimates-of-job-loss?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=1

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office gave new fuel to the debate over the Affordable Care Act Tuesday with its estimate that the law will lead to the eventual loss of about 2.5 million full-time jobs.

In its annual budget and economic forecast the agency also said that the ACA or Obamacare will reduce the total number of hours worked by about 1.5 percent to 2 percent from 2017 to 2024.

Even though total employment will increase over the coming decade, the CBO said, “that increase will be smaller than it would have been in the absence of the ACA.”

Four health-care takeaways from the Congressional Budget Office report

CBO director Douglas Elmendorf told reporters that the analysis done by his agency’s experts “led us to conclude that the effect of the Affordable Care Act on labor supply would be a good deal larger than we had thought originally.” In 2011, the CBO estimated the loss of full-time equivalent jobs due to the law would be about 800,000.

Elmendorf also told reporters that the employer mandate – the requirement that firms offer health insurance to workers– “will reduce the demand for labor in the short term because employers face this extra cost. It is analogous in some ways to raising the minimum wage.”

The CBO report said that “workers will choose to supply less labor—given the new taxes and other incentives they will face and the financial benefits some will receive.”

Both sides of the Obamacare debate used the new findings to buttress their arguments, with House Speaker John Boehner saying that Republicans had argued for years that “the president's health care law creates uncertainty for small businesses, hurts take-home pay, and makes it harder to invest in new workers. The middle class is getting squeezed in this economy, and this CBO report confirms that Obamacare is making it worse.”

But Obama spokesman Jay Carney said the CBO analysis was incomplete. The budget office, he said, did not take into account the beneficial effect of slower health care cost growth due to the ACA, “Experts have estimated that slower growth in health costs due to the ACA will cause the economy to add an additional 250,000 to 400,000 jobs per year by the end of the decade,” he said. “Moreover, CBO does not take into account positive impacts on worker productivity due to the ACA's role in improving workers' health, including reduced absenteeism.”

[Winehole23]

from the same CBO report, says Jonathan Chait:


Note that they’re both assuming not only that any subsidy can be fairly called a bailout, but also that a subsidy will surely exist. The risk corridor program could end up paying more than it takes in, in which case it will wind up subsidizing insurers. Conservatives have assumed as a simple given that the risk corridors will pay out more than they take in.



Today’s CBO report predicts just the opposite: that insurance companies will be paid $8 billion, but will pay back $16 billion. The risk corridor program is therefore predicted to result in a net expenditure of negative $8 billion. Repealing risk corridors would increase the projected deficit. If we accept the spurious equation of a subsidy with a bailout, then the Republican plan to repeal risk corridors would be a bailout, and the risk corridors would be the opposite of a bailout.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/02/repeal-imaginary-obamacare-bailout-gop-insists.html?mid=rss

[Winehole23]

in other words, a tax?

[boutons_deux]

A Lot Of Media Outlets Botched The CBO's Obamacare Report

The Congressional Budget Office issued a report on Tuesday that said (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/05/us/politics/budget-office-revises-estimates-of-health-care-enrollment.html?hp) that as many as 2 million people could exit the workforce thanks to the Affordable Care Act. The reasons for this, the CBO said, were varied, but it stressed that the economy would see "a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply, rather than...a net drop in businesses’ demand for labor," thanks to, for instance, people choosing to quit jobs they didn't like but were only staying in because of their health care benefits.

That's not how a lot of media outlets reported the news, however. A lot of them said that the report was warning that Obamacare would kill over 2 million jobs—a notion at odd's with the CBO's conclusion that some workers would choose not to work.

The Post's own Erik Wemple catalogued (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/02/04/the-medias-massive-revisions-on-cbo-obamacare-story/?hpid=z5) a lot of the other faulty headlines on his blog. A short sample:

UPI earlier: CBO: Obamacare to cost 2.3 million jobs over 10 years

UPI now: WH disputes media claims on CBO Obamacare study

Politico earlier: CBO: Lower enrollment, bigger job losses with Obamacare

Politico now: Report reignites debate over Obamacare and jobs

The Hill earlier: CBO: O-Care slowing growth, contributing to job losses

The Hill now: CBO: O-Care will cost 2.5M workers

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/05/media-cbo-obamacare-report_n_4730216.html


The media’s massive revisions on CBO-Obamacare story

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/02/04/the-medias-massive-revisions-on-cbo-obamacare-story/?hpid=z5

[boutons_deux]

The Explosive CBO Report On Obamacare Wasn't As Explosive As It Seemed

The CBO doesn't answer those questions, noting that any estimate of the Affordable Care Act's "impact on labor markets is subject to substantial uncertainty." But the agency does explore good and bad effects on labor productivity that come with loosening the so-called job lock, in which people feel they can't leave an employer for fear of losing health care coverage.

On the bad front, the CBO notes that some employers may be rewarded to "invest less in their workers" (by, say, reducing training) if they believe there is going to be greater turnover of employees. Why spend money training someone who may end up leaving or asking to work fewer hours?

On the flip side, the CBO notes that when there is greater access to coverage on the individual market, it could "lead to improved health among workers" and "labor productivity could be enhanced." In addition, the CBO wrote, "the ACA could influence labor productivity indirectly by making it easier for some employees to obtain health insurance outside the workplace and thereby prompting those workers to take jobs that better match their skills, regardless of whether those jobs offered employment-based insurance."

This last point is not insignificant. In fact, it was one of the few outcomes of the law that has received positive press attention -- at least prior to Tuesday's CBO report.

In September, NBC News profiled (http://www.nbcnews.com/health/quitting-obamacare-trapped-workers-may-seek-relief-new-health-exchanges-8C11277058) Claudia and Joseph Schulz, an Arizona couple who had talked about starting their own real estate shop together, but had held off because they worried about giving up their health insurance.

In an interview Tuesday with The Huffington Post, Claudia Schulz explained that members of her family (they have three kids) had pre-existing conditions, making any change of employment rife with uncertainty.

"We had amazing jobs," she said. "We didn't have a problem with it. We didn't feel lost or trapped in our jobs. We had thought about opening our own business and one of the obstacles was not having good health insurance. When the Affordable Care Act came around, we thought, well now might be a good time. ... It was an obstacle removed."

That September, the Schulzs left their respective jobs. In October, they encountered some difficulty with the health care website rollout. But it wasn't overwhelming or discouraging, Claudia Schulz said. The tougher choice was picking the plan they wanted. The one they found had a $700 monthly premium for the entire family and a $12,000 deductible, she said. The deductible was "a little bit higher" than the one she and her husband had on their COBRA coverage. But the premium was $900 a month lower.
"With the difference, we are saving for our deductible," she said. "Hopefully, we won't have to use it and we can just add to our savings."

The family did not receive a tax subsidy for purchasing insurance. But their previous doctors (including their pediatrician and dentist) fell under the same network. They are now building their own residential real estate firm.

"It helped us," Claudia Schulz said of Obamacare. "I actually think it is good for small businesses. I'm now contributing to the economy, building a website, using contractors, and hiring small mom and pop shops for help."

The Schulzs' story is just one of many that will be told in the wake of the CBO report. There will be negative experiences to go with the family's positive one.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/04/cbo-obamacare_n_4726217.html?ir=Media

[Wild Cobra]

in other words, a tax?
How are you for my idea of requiring a one time pay increase to employees that gives them the employers share of the payroll tax, then having a strait across the board 13% social tax on everyone. Right now, for ever dollar, employees only get $0.9335 after their FICA deduction. They pay 7.45% and so does the employer. If the employee gets this extra money, making it $1.0745 instead of $1, then pays 13%, the employee now has $0.9366 from every dollar.

Now here is the catch. We have to balance the budget. As social expenditures increase or decrease, this rate goes up or down. For everyone. No exceptions. This is a social tax in addition to the federal income tax.

[boutons_deux]

"We have to balance the budget."

Tell Repugs to stop starting bogus wars.

Put the taxes back up on the tax-evading wealthy and corporations (including NFL) way up so they pay their fair share.

result: budget in surplus.

[Winehole23]

How are you for my idea of requiring a one time pay increase to employees that gives them the employers share of the payroll tax, then having a strait across the board 13% social tax on everyone.New "Flat tax" withholding triggered by demand?

I'm not for that. No thanks.

[Wild Cobra]

New "Flat tax" withholding triggered by demand?

I'm not for that. No thanks.

The reason I advocate such an idea is it holds all tax paying voters more responsible to how they cast their vote. Without the 47% having a dog in the fight for paying a tax that reflect what DC does, they don't care if other people's taxes go up or down. They need skin in the game.

[boutons_deux]

The reason I advocate such an idea is it holds all tax paying voters more responsible to how they cast their vote. Without the 47% having a dog in the fight for paying a tax that reflect what DC does, they don't care if other people's taxes go up or down. They need skin in the game.

:lol WC, always ready with highly regressive taxes that screw the poor and enrich the wealthy

[Winehole23]

The reason I advocate such an idea is it holds all tax paying voters more responsible to how they cast their vote. Without the 47% having a dog in the fight for paying a tax that reflect what DC does, they don't care if other people's taxes go up or down. They need skin in the game.there might be unforeseen problems arising from brand new federal bureaucracies purporting to reform bureaucracy itself, and fuck you, the 47% do have a dog in the fight.

Btw, when did it becomes cool to put 47% of Americans down because they're too poor to pay income tax?

[Winehole23]

oh right, 2012.

[Winehole23]

let's just tax poor people more. it'd be unfair not to.

[boutons_deux]

Nearly every U.S. state taxes the poor more than the rich (http://www.itepnet.org/whopays3.pdf), according to a 2009 report by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. Overall, the poorest 20 percent of households paid an average 10.9 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes in 2007, while the top 1 percent on average paid just 5.2 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes, according to the study.

Most state and local tax systems are regressive, the study found: that is, tax rates become higher as income becomes lower. This regressiveness hits the middle class, too: The middle 20 percent of families paid a 9.4 percent state and local tax rate in 2007 (http://www.itepnet.org/whopays3.pdf), according to the study.

State income taxes are the most progressive part of state and local tax systems, according to the study: that is, when it comes to state income taxes, richer people pay a higher tax rate than poor people. Sales and excise taxes, on the other hand, are very regressive, and property taxes are somewhat regressive. This combination forces poor people to pay a higher share of their income in state and local taxes than the rich.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/21/poor-americans-state-local-taxes_n_1903993.html

There was one study for Texas only, poor paying a higher %age of the income in taxes than the wealty, can't find it now.

[AntiChrist]

ACA = TFD

total fucking disaster

[boutons_deux]

Conservatives Seize On Report To Argue Obamacare Is A Job Killer — But The Author Says They’re Wrong (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/02/05/3252421/elmendorf-debunk-obamacare-job-killer/)

On Wednesday, Congressional Budget Office (CBO) director Doug Elmendorf refuted the claim that the Affordable Care Act is a job killer — a misleading takeaway from his agency’s new report that is being touted by Obamacare critics (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/02/obamacare-jobs-and.html).

Testifying before the House Budget Committee on the CBO’s newly released economic projections (http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45010-Outlook2014.pdf) for the next decade, Elmendorf addressed the report’s finding that the Affordable Care Act will reduce the labor participation rate and the total number of hours worked by an equivalent of 2 million jobs in 2017. According to Elmendorf, that statistic is being taken out of context to suggest that Obamacare will eliminate jobs.

“The reason we don’t use the term ‘lost jobs’ is there is a critical difference between people who like to work and can’t find a job — or have a job that’s lost for reasons beyond their control — and people who choose not to work,” he explained. “If someone comes up to you and says, ‘The boss says I’m being laid off because we don’t have enough business to pay,’ any other person feels bad about that and we sympathize for them having lost their job. If someone says, ‘I decided to retire or stay home and spend more time with my family and spend more time doing my hobby,’ they don’t feel bad about it — they feel good about it. And we don’t sympathize. We say congratulations.”

Even Budget Committee Chairman and former GOP vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan conceded that point in part. “Just to understand, it is not that employers are laying people off,” said Ryan at the beginning of the hearing.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/02/05/3252421/elmendorf-debunk-obamacare-job-killer/

:lol

[boutons_deux]

ACA = TFD

total fucking disaster

evidence?

[tlongII]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/05/budget-office-chief-obamacare-creates-disincentive-to-work/

Budget office chief: ObamaCare creates ‘disincentive’ to work

The head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office delivered a damning assessment Wednesday of the Affordable Care Act, telling lawmakers that ObamaCare creates a "disincentive for people to work," adding fuel to Republican arguments that the law will hurt the economy.




The testimony from CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf comes after his office released a highly controversial report that detailed how millions of workers could cut back their hours or opt out of the job market entirely because of benefits under the health law.

The White House and its Democratic allies accused Republicans, and the media, of mischaracterizing the findings. But Elmendorf backed Republicans' central argument -- fewer people will work because of the law's subsidies.

"The act creates a disincentive for people to work," Elmendorf said, under questioning from House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis.

- Douglas Elmendorf, CBO Director

Ryan clarified that the CBO report found not that employers would lay people off, but that more individuals would choose not to work.

"As a result ... that [lower] labor supply lowers economic growth," Ryan said.

Elmendorf answered: "Yes, that's right."

Ryan fumed that this would mean fewer people would be "joining the middle class."

"It's adding insult to injury," he said. "As the welfare state expands, the incentive to work declines -- meaning grow the government, you shrink the economy."

Elmendorf, who was addressing the House Budget Committee, did say that the subsidies provided under the Affordable Care Act would make lower-income people "better off."

And Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., top Democrat on the committee, argued that the CBO findings were still being misinterpreted. He pointed to more positive findings in the report, including that health care premiums would go down.

The CBO report on Tuesday effectively found that more people would opt to keep their income low to stay eligible for federal health care subsidies or Medicaid. The workforce changes would mean nationwide losses equal to 2.3 million full-time jobs by 2021, the report said.

Republican lawmakers seized on the report as major new evidence of what they consider the failures of Obama's overhaul, the huge change in U.S. health coverage that they're trying to overturn and planning to use as a main argument against Democrats in November's midterm elections.

It's the latest indication that "the president's health care law is destroying full-time jobs," said Republican Rep. John Kline of Minnesota, chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee. "This fatally flawed health care scheme is wreaking havoc on working families nationwide," he said.

But the White House said the possible reduction would be due to voluntary steps by workers rather than businesses cutting jobs -- people having the freedom to retire early or spend more time as stay-at-home parents because they no longer had to depend only on their employers for health insurance.

The law means people "will be empowered to make choices about their own lives and livelihoods," said White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Tuesday.

It wasn't all bad news for the Obama administration. The CBO's wide-ranging report predicted that the federal budget deficit will fall to $514 billion this year, down from last year's $680 billion and the lowest by far since Obama took office five years ago.

The new estimates also say that the health care law will, in the short run, benefit the economy by boosting demand for goods and services because the lower-income people it helps will have more purchasing power. The report noted that the 2014 premiums that people pay for exchange coverage are coming in about 15 percent lower than projected, and the health care law, on balance, still is expected to reduce the federal deficit.

However, the budget experts see the long-term federal deficit picture worsening by about $100 billion a year through the end of the decade because of slower growth in the economy than they had previously predicted.

[angrydude]

That's ok. Obama says its a good thing.

[boutons_deux]

fox "news" :lol

[ChumpDumper]

Wait. Being stuck in a job just for the insurance is a good and desirable thing according to Republicans.

Nice.

[boutons_deux]

fox "news" :lol

"the president's health care law is destroying full-time jobs," said Republican Rep. John Kline of Minnesota :lol

[Wild Cobra]

let's just tax poor people more. it'd be unfair not to.

How does my idea tax them more? I would say that one plus to it is that everyone sees a part of what their employment really taxes them.

Did you know your employer matched your 7.65% FICA deduction? How many people do?

[Wild Cobra]

there might be unforeseen problems arising from brand new federal bureaucracies purporting to reform bureaucracy itself, and fuck you, the 47% do have a dog in the fight.

Btw, when did it becomes cool to put 47% of Americans down because they're too poor to pay income tax?
This way they can claim to pay taxes...

How did I put them down, or is that your personal prejudice on the topic?

[ElNono]

This way they can claim to pay taxes...

They pay taxes every day... gas, sales, etc...

[Winehole23]

Wait. Being stuck in a job just for the insurance is a good and desirable thing according to Republicans.People are voting with their feet. Health benefits no longer tie them to crappy jobs.

[tlongII]

There are two rules in economics upon which all economists agree: 1) there's no such thing as a free lunch, and 2) incentives matter. This development in Obamacare hits them both.

People are being incentivized to work less. That means lower output, which means less wealth. Less wealth means fewer tax dollars to fund this program and less money in the economy in general.

Second, those that claim health care will be "cheaper" really mean to say, "someone else will pick up the tab". Those people who pick up the tab will have less to invest--meaning fewer jobs and less innovation--and less to spend, which means less consumer demand.

This program is a wealth transfer and a disincentive to work. It puts yet another layer of bureaucracy between doctor and patient, which raises costs and limits choice. And the proof in the pudding for how much this law sucks? The people who wrote it and supported it most vociferously have exempted themselves from and/or have been given loopholes to not be held to it.

At this point, those who still support this law deserve what they get.

[Jacob1983]

Bring on the revolution.

[boutons_deux]

you right-wingers so fucking stupid.

[ChumpDumper]

So 2.3 million jobs will be available for those who want to work?

Great.

[boutons_deux]

So 2.3 million jobs will be available for those who want to work?

Great.

that and all the other right-wing/Repug/Fox LIES have been debunked, including by the author of the report.

[boutons_deux]

Taibbi trashes the right-wing again

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/latest-health-care-flap-shows-media-at-its-most-boring-20140206?utm_source=dailynewsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter

[boutons_deux]

Plenty of (male) people can' find (good) jobs anyway, but you right-wingers and the asshole Repugs you elect don't give a shit about that
(http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/02/1-6-men-prime-working-years-dont-job.html)
Over 1 in 6 Men in Prime Working Years Don’t Have a Job (http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/02/1-6-men-prime-working-years-dont-job.html)


A new Wall Street Journal story (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304027204579334610097660366) on how many men aged 25 to 54 can’t find work, fails to mention but nevertheless shellacks an embarrassing New York Fed paper (http://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2014/02/a-mis-leading-labor-market-indicator.html) released earlier this week. The Fed’s propagandists tried to argue that labor markets are tighter than is widely believed. The basis for the authors’ sunny view? Changing demographics. Their proof? An absurd “normalized, demographically adjusted,” seasonally adjusted, business-cycle free employment to population ratio, to wit:

For each of the 10.2 million individuals in our sample, based on their decade of birth, sex, race/ethnicity, and education, we select one of our 280 estimated career employment rate profiles. Using the worker’s age, we calculate the predicted employment rate for that individual based on their selected employment rate profile. We then calculate the weighted average of these predicted employment rates across all individuals in a given time period to generate an estimated E/P ratio for that time period. We repeat this exercise for each time period covered by our data.


Oh, and after that they seasonally adjusted and then “normalized” the data.

They might instead have looked out the window, say at the long lines any time a big employer opens a new facility, or readily-available information like this (http://jobsearch.about.com/b/2013/08/18/the-number-of-job-applications-per-opening.htm):

ERE reports that “Although it varies with the company and the job, on average 250 resumes are received for each corporate job opening.” In addition, out of every 1000 people who view an online job posting, 100 people will apply, 4 – 6 will be selected for an interview, 1 – 3 will be invited for a final interview, 1 will be offered the job, and 80% of those who get a job offer accept it.


Admittedly, the Internet makes it vastly easier to apply for jobs than the old-fashioned written submission, but this sort of bid to cover ratio isn’t consistent with a strong employment market.

Now if you had managed to take the New York Fed’s porcine maquillage seriously, you’d also have to believe that employment conditions hadn’t deteriorated within particular demographic groups. The Wall Street Journal shows (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304027204579334610097660366?mod=WS J_hp_RightTopStories) how the very backbone of the labor market, men in their prime (for measurement purposes, 25 to 54), are out of work to an unprecedented degree. The story is worth reading in full; it has a larger-than usual number of anecdotes, including a 53 year old community college grant writer who was fired as a result of budget cuts, to a 29 year old who was laid off shortly after getting his first job as a public school administrator, to a 52 year old Army staff sergeant who was discharged six months prior to being eligible to receive a full pension as a result of a training injury.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/02/1-6-men-prime-working-years-dont-job.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NakedCapitalism+%28naked+capi talism%29

[Jacob1983]

This is why America's government needs to crumble then everyone will be on a level playing field. Bring the revolution on. I'm ready.

[Rogue]

uneducated shitheads will always get a minimum-wage job no matter what, so they're the most staunch supporters of Obamacare. There's a subversive movement orchestrated by Obama that's gradually dragging this country deeper into the quagmire of economic hardship. It might be just me but what Obama does looks nothing different to me than breaking your wooden door to burn it for its warmth. It makes you feel good for a short while but in the long run it'll end up costing more, imho.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

So people will be able to leave a job they hate because they don't need the insurance anymore.

Why is this a bad thing?

[ElNono]

So people will be able to leave a job they hate because they don't need the insurance anymore.

Why is this a bad thing?

you're not outraged enough, tbh

[tlongII]

Liberals, Obamacare and Work


So far, nearly all of the left-of-center responses to the latest C.B.O. projections on Obamacare and workforce participation have emphasized the upside of the downward trend — the fact that what we’re seeing is just the end of job lock in action, which gives parents the freedom to cut their hours, near-retirees the chance to stop working a job they hate a little early, and so on down a sympathetic list. ”If Obamacare really does cause millions of people to voluntarily leave full-time employment,” Matt Yglesias writes in a representative piece, “that shows us how much avoidable suffering the earlier system was causing,” and you can find roughly similar arguments from Jonathan Cohn, Jonathan Chait, and others too numerous to name.

The issue that I’d really like to see liberals reckon with comes from this post by Tyler Cowen, which I’ll quote at length:


In two papers, one of which is quite recent, and does not stem from the Heritage Foundation, [Alan] Krueger shows rather convincingly that the unemployed maintain reservation wages which are simply too high. They would be better off lowering those wages, being more realistic, accepting work, and getting back on their feet again. In other settings (not considered by Krueger), other workers seem to be too slow to move to new areas for new jobs, given the costs of being unemployed long-term.

… OK, given all that, when those workers, hit by negative shocks, do not rush to go back to work at lower reservation wages, we then read a portrait of hysteresis, despair, and soul-crushing joblessness, a psychic swamp so difficult to escape that even summoning up the strength to go back to work may be difficult.

In other words, would-be workers irrationally undervalue the benefits of having a job and they also underestimate the costs of remaining unemployed.




Now let’s switch settings. A benefit shock comes along, positive for many people, and it induces many of them to work less or not work at all. How happy should we be? And here I mean happy at the margin, due to their change in employment decision.

People, it is rather difficult to have it here both ways. I guess it is possible that workers are irrational in changing their employment decisions in response to changes in relative dollar wage opportunities, but rational when changing their employment decisions in response to changes in relative benefit opportunities. It really is possible. But are any of you actually arguing that or holding some deep-seated reason for believing in that difference, other than perhaps the reason this post might have induced you to come up with? No, I see one assumption about a destructive choice in one context and the opposing assumption about a beneficial choice in the other context, without much regard for the tension or contradiction between those two assumptions ….

… A simpler possibility is that people undervalue the long-term benefits of having a job and thus in both settings the contraction in employment is a quite negative outcome. That is then very bad news for ACA, if only in expected value terms.

Here is how I would frame the issue: There are specific classes of people who plainly benefit, in fairly uncomplicated ways, from benefits that provide an incentive to work less, or leave a job outright. The obvious examples are the ones that liberals keep invoking: Parents of young children (for whom the family-friendly tax overhaul that conservative reformers like to tout would presumably have a similar effect), and people with a disability or chronic medical condition that makes work a simple misery.

But there also lots of people who emphatically do not benefit from being given an incentive to either detach from the workforce or (if they’re already unemployed or underemployed) remain detached rather than taking a lower-paying job. And given the current economic landscape, especially — in which persistently high unemployment coexists with a growing population of workers too discouraged to even look for work — the size and scope of a work-discouraging effect matters a great deal: The bigger the effect, the more likely that the people dropping out aren’t just, say, parents cutting hours to spend more time at home while the other spouse works full time, but people we should want to be attached to the workforce, for their own long-term good and the good of the economy as well.

Which is why it’s appropriate that the new C.B.O. projection of 2 million to 2.5 million job-equivalents disappearing has inspired more disquiet and debate than the old projection of 500,000-900,000 … because it’s a sign, however provisional, that the costs of Obamacare’s workforce effects might exceed the benefits. I don’t see liberals reckoning seriously with that possibility, and I think they really should.

[ChumpDumper]

Hey, possibilities and guesses.

Nice.

[spursncowboys]

The French govt. tried this idea. Make people not able to work past a certain number of hours, thereby keeping more hours available to others who do not have jobs. Then making minimum wage laws so everyone is getting paid enough to live comfortably on. The result: higher unemployment. A shrinking economy.

Obama and the writers of the ACA never planned this. So using the 'not making them have to stay in a company for benefits' is an attempt to save face.

So far:
You can't keep your doctor
You can't keep your plan
It won't make it cheaper
It won't lead to job creation

[ChumpDumper]

lol talking points

[spursncowboys]

Don't really need talking points for this.

[ElNono]

The French govt. tried this idea. Make people not able to work past a certain number of hours, thereby keeping more hours available to others who do not have jobs.

uh? who is limiting the amount of hours people can work?

[ElNono]

let me rephrase that... how is *this* limiting the amount of hours people can work?

[Wild Cobra]

They pay taxes every day... gas, sales, etc...
User fees, and not all states have a sales tax. Isn't there a method of filing to account for sales tax deductions as well?

All I am saying, is replace the FICA deductions with a tangible figure that people actually see. I'm not saying to rraise anyone's tax, just make it more visible, and variable. It may raise taxes, but the visibility I bet will cause them to lower instead.

[spursncowboys]

let me rephrase that... how is *this* limiting the amount of hours people can work?
its not. That was the French government. It's not exactly the same situation.

[Wild Cobra]

let me rephrase that... how is *this* limiting the amount of hours people can work?
I think it has to do with the number of hours worked before an employer must provide insurance. In my situation, it is limiting the number of people hired because it is cheaper to work us full time workers up to 50-some hrs a week, than to pay for the extra benefits of hiring people.

[ElNono]

User fees, and not all states have a sales tax. Isn't there a method of filing to account for sales tax deductions as well?

A gas tax is a tax, a tobacco tax is a tax, a sales tax is a tax. What "user fees"?

What you want is to pick winners and losers, just like with any tax scenario. Everybody, one way or the other, has a skin in the game. Some more, some less.

[ElNono]

its not. That was the French government. It's not exactly the same situation.

Yeah, I thought in the context of this situation, it didn't make sense.


I think it has to do with the number of hours worked before an employer must provide insurance. In my situation, it is limiting the number of people hired because it is cheaper to work us full time workers up to 50-some hrs a week, than to pay for the extra benefits of hiring people.

That's not what this discussion is about though. We're talking about employees voluntarily opting out of having a job.

[ElNono]

I just don't quite get the GOP strategy with this Barrycare turd. Tax season is coming, they should be jumping on the individual mandate. While the fee is relatively low this year, it gets progressively expensive, and actually getting insurance is even more pricey.

[spursncowboys]

Yeah, I thought in the context of this situation, it didn't make sense.



the situation doesn't make sense. Only a politician could spin someone job loss into a positive

[FuzzyLumpkins]

the situation doesn't make sense. Only a politician could spin someone job loss into a positive

You realize that there is a difference between being fired and laid off versus choosing of your own volition to leave a job right? Thus the comments about people who actually want said jobs will have the opening available? Maybe you do get it but you do not acknowledge it.

[ElNono]

the situation doesn't make sense. Only a politician could spin someone job loss into a positive

it's someone job loss because that someone decides not to work anymore. There's no forced loss of employment (or reduction of hours like you suggested).

People retire all the time, I don't know if that's a positive or a negative. It just is.

We could frame this discussion around whether it's better or worse to have one less reason to keep working, but I would suspect that the people this applies the most is people whose sole motivation for remaining in the work force is getting employer health insurance (if they like their job, there's nothing preventing them from keep on working). If that's the case, then I have to think they're mailing in whatever else they do.

I understand pulling the outrage card for the website fiasco, the 'keep your insurance' fiasco, the up and coming individual mandate fiasco, the up and up policy prices that don't address cost, etc etc etc. But when you start pulling the outrage card for flimsy stuff like this you erode your already low credibility, and IMO, it's stupid seeing Barrycare it's such a giant turd and easy target.

[Spanklin]

There are two rules in economics upon which all economists agree: 1) there's no such thing as a free lunch, and 2) incentives matter. This development in Obamacare hits them both.

People are being incentivized to work less. That means lower output, which means less wealth. Less wealth means fewer tax dollars to fund this program and less money in the economy in general.

Second, those that claim health care will be "cheaper" really mean to say, "someone else will pick up the tab". Those people who pick up the tab will have less to invest--meaning fewer jobs and less innovation--and less to spend, which means less consumer demand.

This program is a wealth transfer and a disincentive to work. It puts yet another layer of bureaucracy between doctor and patient, which raises costs and limits choice. And the proof in the pudding for how much this law sucks? The people who wrote it and supported it most vociferously have exempted themselves from and/or have been given loopholes to not be held to it.

At this point, those who still support this law deserve what they get.

It's okay, we can print to infinity to pay for the lack of economic activity when boutons & co. retire at 49 in true lazy lib welfare queen fashion.

[EVAY]

Nuance is often something lost on folks trying to use reports for political talking points.

There is a difference in wanting "to work" vs. wanting to "have a job. What the CBO is describing is folks who have felt that they have to "have a job" in order to get health care insurance MAY be expected to willingly leave the workforce, or at least leave the salaried job they have held for the purpose of having health care insurance.

People who actively want "to work" will be just as able to do so, if not more so, than now.

Who do you imagine would be the more productive worker - the one wants to DO something (i.e. work) or the one who wants to HAVE something (i.e. a job with benefits)?

[boutons_deux]

People freed from the "job equals health insurance" chains!

Freedom!

How many 1000s will now work for themselves, freelance, start a new business, go find a job they like, etc?

The only way the Repugs/Fox can spin ACA negatively for electioneering objectives is to LIE, LIE, LIE, cherry pick rare anecdotes, distort, knowing their ignorant base just loves to hate, as they have been told, all government. We see Repugs/Fox now with CBO report, and we saw the Repug lady in her SOTU response blatantly LIE about "Bette".

[angrydude]

You realize that there is a difference between being fired and laid off versus choosing of your own volition to leave a job right? Thus the comments about people who actually want said jobs will have the opening available? Maybe you do get it but you do not acknowledge it.

Hurrah for the middle class subsidizing those who don't want to work?

[angrydude]

People freed from the "job equals health insurance" chains!

Freedom!

How many 1000s will now work for themselves, freelance, start a new business, go find a job they like, etc?

The only way the Repugs/Fox can spin ACA negatively for electioneering objectives is to LIE, LIE, LIE, cherry pick rare anecdotes, distort, knowing their ignorant base just loves to hate, as they have been told, all government. We see Repugs/Fox now with CBO report, and we saw the Repug lady in her SOTU response blatantly LIE about "Bette".

Hurrah for starting a new business in this regulatory environment?

Just don't do too well or you'll become part of the "problem"

[ElNono]

Hurrah for the middle class subsidizing those who don't want to work?

what middle class?

[scott]

News flash to Fox. Supply is not the same thing as demand

[Nbadan]

GOP turning reality upside down, again: No, CBO did not say Obamacare will kill 2 million jobs
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/02/04/no-cbo-did-not-say-obamacare-will-kill-2-million-jobs/



Here we go again. During the 2012 campaign, The Fact Checker had to repeatedly explain that the Congressional Budget Office never said that the Affordable Care Act “killed” 800,000 jobs by 2021. Now, the CBO has released an , nearly the triple the size of the earlier one: 2.3 million in 2021.

~~
~~

The CBO’s estimate is mostly the result of an analysis of the impact of the law on the supply of labor. That means how many people choose to participate in the work force. In other words, the nonpartisan agency is examining whether the law increases or decreases incentives for people to work.

One big issue: the health insurance subsidies in the law. That’s a substantial benefit that decreases as people earn more money, so at a certain point, a person has to choose between earning more money or continuing to get the maximum help with health insurance payments. In other words, people might work longer and harder, but actually earn no more, or earn even less, money. That is a disincentive to work. (The same thing happens when people qualify for food stamps or other social services.)

Thus, some people might decide to work part-time, not full time, in order to keep getting health-care subsidies. Thus, they are reducing their supply of labor to the market.
(more)

[boutons_deux]

Hurrah for starting a new business in this regulatory environment?

Just don't do too well or you'll become part of the "problem"

Numerous polls have shown during the Banksters Great Depression that SMB's biggest problem is not regulation (that's a Repug LIE) but demand.

[spursncowboys]

it's someone job loss because that someone decides not to work anymore. There's no forced loss of employment (or reduction of hours like you suggested).

People retire all the time, I don't know if that's a positive or a negative. It just is.

We could frame this discussion around whether it's better or worse to have one less reason to keep working, but I would suspect that the people this applies the most is people whose sole motivation for remaining in the work force is getting employer health insurance (if they like their job, there's nothing preventing them from keep on working). If that's the case, then I have to think they're mailing in whatever else they do.

I understand pulling the outrage card for the website fiasco, the 'keep your insurance' fiasco, the up and coming individual mandate fiasco, the up and up policy prices that don't address cost, etc etc etc. But when you start pulling the outrage card for flimsy stuff like this you erode your already low credibility, and IMO, it's stupid seeing Barrycare it's such a giant turd and easy target.


This report calculated the retirement separate from the ACA reasons. I wouldn't call a CBO report as flimsy. It's probably the least politicized reports we can get. Also, I do not understand what my response or credibility have to do with the report. But keep defending your sinking ship.

[ElNono]

This report calculated the retirement separate from the ACA reasons. I wouldn't call a CBO report as flimsy. It's probably the least politicized reports we can get. Also, I do not understand what my response or credibility have to do with the report. But keep defending your sinking ship.

I was talking about the GOP credibility, not yours. :lol I didn't see you all outraged like the quotes in the OP.

What are these "ACA reasons"? My understanding is that retirement is calculated on people that reach the retirement age. If somebody decides to retire before then, it's still effectively retirement, even though it's counted differently.

It doesn't change one iota the fact that it's a person's decision to stop working, not an employer/government decision, as you implied in your hourly limit post.

Also, don't get it wrong. Because I think this is an absolutely shitty argument to attack the ACA (especially seeing how troubled the ACA is overall), it doesn't automatically means I'm "defending" it. The ACA is crap, and I'd like to see if replaced.

[boutons_deux]

Tax season is coming, they should be jumping on the individual mandate. While the fee is relatively low this year

The non-insured fee on 2014 will be due April 2015. That's a long time away.

Plus, the enrollment stats aren't in yet until April 2014, so the number of uninsured is unknown.

Plus, people who don't buy insurance could be covered by expanded Medicaid REFUSED by nearly all red states, forcing their own states' residents to be liable for the penalty.

[ElNono]

The non-insured fee on 2014 will be due April 2015. That's a long time away.

I did not know that, I thought I would've had to pay in this tax cycle.

[boutons_deux]

CBO Finds Obamacare Lets Americans Quit Jobs They Don't Want, Which Rightbloggers, Naturally, Oppose

When it became clear that the jig was up, rightbloggers got pissed. Reason's David Harsanyi (http://reason.com/archives/2014/02/07/unemployment-is-freedom-under-obamacare) bitched, "What was once a story about Obamacare's discouraging work and impeding job creation is now a dispute about semantics." ("Mission accomplished" -- by the lieberal MSM!) Harsanyi was especially angered by Kessler's fact check. "Using Kessler's logic," said Harsanyi, "each time some clueless reporter mentions the word 'jobs' in any story about the labor force participation rate -- or the unemployment rate, for that matter -- he or she may be lying to the public." Imagine, nit-picking the press over something like that!

When Salon's Brian Beutler (http://www.salon.com/2014/02/05/anatomy_of_a_media_disaster_why_the_press_is_botch ing_the_latest_obamacare_story/) called the mischaracterizations "the biggest Obamacare derp storm of the year," Ann Althouse (http://althouse.blogspot.com/2014/02/together-these-weaknesses-led-to.html) challenged: "Is that the way grown men talk now? In case you're wondering, Urban Dictionary supplies this definition of 'derp' -- with 11,000+ 'up' votes -- from 2005: 'A simple, undefined reply when an ignorant comment or action is made'..." Many words later: "the stupidity is running deep this morning, and even the observers of stupidity are manifesting their stupid idea of superiority by talking stupidly."
Soon enough it became necessary for rightbloggers to acknowledge the New Reality: That Obamacare would free up workers to quit their jobs, which was what was so terrible about it.

Some of the brethren reverted to historical form: Because Obamacare involves subsidies, it's like welfare, and therefore those receiving Obamacare were like the "welfare queens" conservatives have been using as outrage bait for decades. Since Obamacare isn't associated with black people, except for You Know Who, their quivers were missing a few arrows, but still they made a valiant attempt.

"Just as extending unemployment benefits discourages people from taking a job," said Hoppy Kercheval (http://wvmetronews.com/2014/02/07/how-obamacare-discourages-work/) at West Virginia Metro News, "prorating health insurance premium subsides to income will discourage some people from trying to move up the economic ladder." We wonder how many of Kercheval's readers felt a double blush of shame because they were unemployed and had Obamacare coverage. It's like they're ripping off America twice!

Similarly, Arnold Ahlert (http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arnold-ahlert/obamacare-liberating-the-workers/) of FrontPageMag brought up Nancy Pelosi, who years earlier "spoke about musicians and other creative types who could quit their jobs and focus on developing their talents" -- but since subsidies were involved, "much of those costs will apparently be borne by those less artistically inclined and/or creative." America, you're paying Obamacare queens to write beat poetry, pop their fingers, and, who knows, maybe cultivate beards.

At Real Clear Politics, Carl M. Cannon (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/02/09/cbos_obamacare_figures_just_dont_work_for_dems_121 507.html) told readers Obamacare subsidies would be financed by "Americans who remain in the workforce, most of whom are middle class" and "future generations of Americans" -- that is, one group Republicans hope to win back, and a catchphrase they hope to win them back with. Then Cannon talked about how much he respected Bill Clinton (ha ha (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Protected/Articles/000/000/008/253irbfr.asp)) and complained, "for years, it seemed that although Democrats profess to love jobs, they couldn't stand employers. Now they've gone a step further: They don't even favor work."

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2014/02/cbo_finds_obama.php

right-wing MOFOs are/were/always WRONG.



Here's some context employers and conservatives don't GAF about:

New Gallup Poll Shows 70 Percent of Americans Are Disengaged From Their Jobs

A recent Gallup poll (http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-employee-engagement-gallup-poll-20130617,0,5878658.story) found that 70 percent of American workers are disengaged from their jobs. Of the 100 million people who hold jobs in America, the survey found that 30 million are actively engaged, 50 million are not engaged and 20 million are actively disengaged.

The consequences are many, but Gallup estimates that actively disengaged employees cost the U.S. as much as $550 billion in economic activity each year. The public also suffers immensely as this disengagement will undoubtedly rub off on poor customer service and issues of quality control.

Here's my critical thinking question to disengaged employees: why don't you get out of that job you hate so much and do something you love?

It doesn't seem to matter what industry, profession, occupation, or sport champions choose - the criteria for selection is almost always enjoyment. Champions tend to choose their fields based on pure enjoyment of the activity. Some people say that champions don't pick their field, the field picks them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-siebold/new-gallup-poll-shows-70-_b_3467078.html

shitty jobs, shitty bosses, shitty company cultures, while the bosses and investors take home $Ms.

[angrydude]

Numerous polls have shown during the Banksters Great Depression that SMB's biggest problem is not regulation (that's a Repug LIE) but demand.

You're right. Better give goldman sachs more money to fix that pronto.

Better yet, lets write every American a check for 5,000 to go spend at walmart.

When you don't have enough money it isn't because you don't have a job; it's because you don't have enough welfare.

[boutons_deux]

Better yet, lets write every American a check for 5,000 to go spend at walmart.

not every american, just the bottom 50%. every penny would be spent, giving a huge STIMULUS to the economy, unlike the $Ts handed to the financial sector to gamble with.


When you don't have enough money it isn't because you don't have a job; it's because you don't have enough welfare.

10Ms of people WITH JOB(S) don't have enough money, so they get humanitarian aid from taxpayers.

[boutons_deux]

http://www.alternet.org/files/styles/large/public/blameaca.png

[spursncowboys]

Cbo estimate of 2% market growth in the future.

[scott]

lol

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45096


Q: Will 2.5 Million People Lose Their Jobs in 2024 Because of the ACA?
A: No, we would not describe our estimates in that way.

[boutons_deux]

"2.5 Million People Lose Their Jobs"

you still believe this Fox/Repug LIE? :lol

CBO's answer was correct, but way too complex for you right-wingnuts.

[scott]

"2.5 Million People Lose Their Jobs"

you still believe this Fox/Repug LIE? :lol

CBO's answer was correct, but way too complex for you right-wingnuts.




lol, you still don't get it

[Jacob1983]

Boutons, does the Obama koolaid flow through the veins in your body?

[boutons_deux]

lol, you still don't get it

:lol I get your FALSE OUTRAGE, your KENYAN MUSLIM N!GG@ DERANGEMENT SYNDROME

[boutons_deux]

job killers? all y'all right winger be lookin out for job killers?

Study: Government-By-(Repug)-Crisis Has Cost 750,000 Jobs

According to the report from the Peterson Institute for International Economics — titled “Flirting With Default: Issues Raised By Debt Confrontations In The United States (http://www.iie.com/publications/papers/20140205default-report.pdf)” — the debt ceiling standoffs of 2011 and 2013, the threat of falling over the fiscal cliff in 2012, the imposition of sequester cuts in March 2013, and the government shutdown in October 2013, had a tangible negative economic effect. Author David J. Stockton, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute, writes that fiscal policy uncertainty caused by the governing crises “depressed the level of real GDP by about one percentage point and correspondingly raised the level of the unemployment rate by a bit more than 1/2 percentage point.”

That translates to a loss of $150 billion per year, and 750,000 jobs.

This is not the first attempt to quantify the damage of the various crises that have paralyzed Washington throughout the Obama administration; in October, Standard & Poor’s estimated that the government shutdown cost the economy $24 billion. (http://www.nationalmemo.com/standard-poors-government-shutdown-cost-24-billion/)

“There is no need for America’s legislators to behave as badly as their counterparts in far poorer and less solidly democratic countries do,” Peterson Institute president Adam S. Posen writes in the
report, “and there certainly are significant costs of even threatening to do so.”

http://www.nationalmemo.com/study-government-crisis-cost-750000-jobs/