Printable View
A hint for you when you go back to the dumb-dumb drawing board, Yoni. Not even the folks claiming Obamacare is "job killing" are saying it would result in 650,000 fewer health care jobs. At least make the effort to familiarize yourself with the bullshit you're defending beforehand.
:lmao
"So it IS job killing, in the sense that getting more sleep at night is 'awake-killing'"
To be fair, a 0.5% loss of employment would be closer to 700,000, wouldn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Employment Situation Summary:
So if I read that right, a 9.4% unemployment with 14.5 million unemployed means a workforce of 154 million. Minus the 14.5 million unemployed means 140,000,000 employed. 0.5% of that is 700,000. These numbers are rounded:Quote:
The number of unemployed persons decreased by 556,000 to 14.5 million
in December, and the unemployment rate dropped to 9.4 percent. Over
the year, these measures were down from 15.2 million and 9.9 percent,
respectively. (See table A-1.)
Code:unemployed 14,500,000
Workforce 154,255,319
employed 139,755,319
loss at 0.5% 698,777
With 10s of Ms of (low income, iow, unhealthy) uninsured to be provided health care, there will certainly be an increase in health care jobs.
Even the for-profit, greedy health insurers do not want ACA killed.
My bad, I misread the article. The CBO claimed it [passage of Obamacare] would result in a .5% reduction of the workforce. That's over 650,000 jobs.Quote:
Originally Posted by scott
Correct?
Now, can we get back to whether or not the loss of those jobs is due to Obamacare or not?
:lmao
It's not...again, read the OP. Focus on this "The legislation, on net, will reduce the amount of labor used in the economy by a small amount _roughly half a percent_ primarily by reducing the amount of labor that workers choose to supply," (emphasis mine) budget office number crunchers said in a report from last year."Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
There are days where I read posts on here I and really hope that those people are just great trolls because the idea of being so damn stupid and unable to comprehend what the entire thread is explaining to you in simple English is sad.
Today is one of those days.
So, some of the over 10% of unemployed will "choose" to supply it again. Right?Quote:
Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue
What does it mean they "choose to supply" labor? If its needed, someone will be needed to provide it. If it's not needed, there must be a corresponding reduction in demand.
I know y'all are getting caught up in the semantics of how the government chose to word this but, the bottom line is this; the enactment of Obamacare (according to the CBO) will result in a .5% reduction in the workforce. I don't care who "chooses" to reduce that workforce, it's still a reduction of approximately 650,000 jobs. And, if the demand for that labor isn't also reduced (which I would find hard to believe right now), then we're talking about a system where there isn't enough resources to replace the required labor that has "chosen" to stop working.
That's the effect of Obamacare on labor. That's what the CBO is saying.
supply of labor =/= jobs. God damn.
Okay, put me some knowledge. What is the "supply of labor" if not jobs?Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
What is the supply of anything Yoni? If I choose to work, I've entered the supply of labor whether or not there is a job available. I am an available worker. I have neither created a job nor destroyed a job but I have added to the supply of available labor. If I choose to not work, say by retiring, then I have no created or destroyed a job but I have removed myself from the supply of available labor.
I get what you're saying. So, with 10% unemployment, what the fuck does it matter if a labor supply, not being used, is reduced or increased?Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
Obviously it matters. A smaller supply of labor is a good thing for workers, bad for companies (very generally speaking).
That, however, is not the point of the OP. Republicans incorrectly used the stat as you did, and the OP was refuting that.
In an environment where companies aren't hiring labor, I don't see how it's bad for them. A change in the workforce a neutral thing for industries that have no positions or no resources to fill the openings they do have.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
If this isn't true, we should see a rise in health care wages. After all, a shortage in supply usually results in a rise in cost.
But, if you ask me, this .5% that is voluntarily leaving the workforce is no different than those unemployed that quit looking for work and, therefore, get lost in the unemployment numbers.
They're both used to skew the truth. More people, than the government is admitting, are not working.
I think it's all a bunch of semantics played by the government to make the simple so complex as to be able to say just about anything they want to.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
Retiring is not the same as not looking for work. (the completely .5 talked about are not all retiring but thats besides the point) One is voluntarily leaving a job while the other is the inability to find a job. What is it with you and trying to misconstrue meanings today? Marklar?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Also, your first two paragraphs are contradictory. If wages go up that is bad for companies. They are always hiring to an extent, and the larger the supply the more leverage they have.
It is what it is. The GOP is trying to use that language in their favor by pretty much lying about what it means.Quote:
I think it's all a bunch of semantics played by the government to make the simple so complex as to be able to say just about anything they want to.
yoni admits this issue is too complex for him to understand.
In the labor market the employer is the consumer and the pool of labor is the supply. Thus labor supply you fucking dimwits.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
John, Jerry and Josh all work at the parts changing company with Wild Cobra. John and Jerry decide they are going to retire. There are now two less people employed at PartsChange Inc. Because they are retired they are no longer in the labor pool.
What this does is reduce supply in the labor market and thus the price (read wages) goes up.
:lolQuote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
So how many people have taken a stab (pardon the vitriol) at explaining this to yoni?
Good lord. Yoni epitomizes why republicans can get away with selling their teabagging constituents just about anything.
Democrats are just as dumb, so I imagine their propaganda works just as well.
Yoni's quite the piece of work, tho. I never talked to anyone so hard-headed.
(Who knows,maybe there is some unforeseeable advantage to having an adamantine skull or being impervious to clear, concise explanations.)
Yoni: too enclosed in his own pettifoggery to see what is in plain view to others?
This is the hallmark of all TeaBaggers. Darrin and Wild Cobra are just as bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Too bad they don't have a monopoly on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by DMX7