It’s not exactly a controversial concept that people prioritize different things in life. The debate over the CBO report really highlights this fact.
Some households will now forego a second income. Not necessarily because they are lazy, but because they value time with family more than money. ACA shifts the incentives more towards not getting that second income for lower income people.
there’s no need to call responding to that incentive logically “lazy”, but it is reasonable to conclude that it will heighten income inequality, since the choice to work less is overwhelmingly going to be at the lower end of the income scale, where the subsidies have the most impact.
The first step for you would be to try to actually understand what you’re reading. Although in this case you may not want to, since what you’re reading is left-wing spin by a Democrat defending the ACA, and you - and the rest of the HuffPost readership - may find it more appealing. But there’s nothing in your cite that in any way contradicts anything I’ve written.
The CBO said that the ACA will reduce the total employment level in this country by several million jobs (or job equivalents, if you prefer). However, the basis for this reduction is due to people voluntarily cutting back on their working rather than being sacked. Therefore Van Hollin carefully focused on the “unemployment rate” in his questioning, because the unemployment rate only measures people who want to work and does not count as unemployed those who voluntarily decide not to work. (The opposite, in fact: by reducing the number of people who want to work, the unemployment rate automatically goes down, because a higher percentage of people who want to work can find jobs.)
This particular distinction was already noted in the OP of this thread, and in fact the entire point of this thread was the voluntary nature of the workforce reduction.
I would have thought this was adequately spelled out. But unfortunately no amount of spelling out suffices for those whose entire focus is limited to “ACA good” versus “ACA bad”.
No.
The Laffer Curve has to do with the net impact of tax rates on tax receipts. Read up on it sometime.
Do you think condescension is a good tactic for getting people to agree with you? Do you actually want anyone to agree with you? Based on your contributions to this thread I’m not sure that you do. Insulting people’s intelligence rarely brings anyone around to another point of view, just fyi.
Truth of the matter is that it’s not a big deal, either way. I don’t think most people are susceptible to being persuaded about dearly held beliefs, and I don’t see my goal as trying to convince anyone of anything. If I did, it would be a very frustrating experience, especially considering that I tend to be a minority viewpoint. But fortunately, I post here for my amusement, so the exchange is the goal and convincing people is secondary, if even that.
That said, I do prefer a calm discussion of the issues to an exchange of condescending remarks. But it’s not something you can always avoid. Not everyone is up to that. So I go with what’s out there. You’re up for a calm discussion of issues, so am I. You accuse me of misrepresenting the facts based on your own ignorance and rigid ideological adherence to your “side’s” talking points then you might get just a bit of a snarkier tone in response. As above, I prefer the former, but not a huge deal either way.
So only one side is rigidly sticking to their side’s talking points? Is that how you see this discussion going? You are disagreeing with the head of the CBO about what his agency’s report says and the other side is the one rigidly sticking to ideology? I don’t see anyone else trying to overrule the head of the CBO on interpreting his own report but you. That’s what is an unreasonable position in my view. If you accept the report, how can you then reject the explanation by the head of the agency that created it? How can you have it both ways? Adding your condescending tone to the top, just makes it that much worse IMO.
I completely agree with the head of the CBO about what his report says. There’s nothing he says that contradicts anything I’ve written. WADR you yourself have misunderstood either the CBO head or this thread or both.
Here’s how it works:
CBO Report: the ACA will cause 2 million or so fewer employees, since fewer people will be motivated to work. Van Hollis: But that means that the unemployment rate will go down, because a higher percentage of people who do want work will find it. CBO Head: that’s correct. Me: Agree that’s correct, but fewer people being motivated to work is itself the issue that I want to discuss.
So I agree that the unemployment rate will go down due to people voluntarily dropping out of the workforce (or reducing their participation), which is the point the CBO head was making.
The point of this thread is that the CBO report is saying that effective marginal rates will discourage people from working, which is an issue IMO.
So if someone doesn’t have to work in order to keep their insurance, which was the only reason they were working, you still want to force them to continue to work? Even if they don’t need to because they aren’t locked to their job by their insurance? I thought reducing job lock and freeing people to make their own choices without risking having no insurance was a good thing. When did that become a bad thing? The moment the ACA started to make it happen?
F-P are you asking whether a slightly reduced incentive to work for some, due to the ACA, is a good or bad thing?
If so, I think it’s a good thing. People who choose to work less because they don’t have to will now have more time for other things… and having more time to do stuff you want to do is good for the economy. Some will start a business. Some will do more volunteer work. Some will take care of their family, which is a good thing, economically speaking, to do. So will spend more time on hobbies and fun, which can mean more spending. Some will do nothing but relax, of course, but even relaxing can be economically beneficial, if it involves spending more for entertainment and travel.
Firstly let’s make clear that you’re backing off your claim that the CBO head contradicts me, in favor of a completely independent argument about the merits of the ACA. (I mean, it’s clear to me, but a lot of people like to go back and forth between arguments just to avoid conceding anything, so you never know.)
That out of the way, you’re now bringing up an issue that has been addressed in this thread. To the extent that the entire issue is people not being tied to their jobs and could be self-supporting otherwise, you’re right. However while that’s undoubtedly a factor that does not appear to be the major factor. The major factor appears to be the high effective marginal tax on work which results from the progressive nature of the subsidies and taxes.
I’ve included some quotes copied directly from the CBO report in post #26, and I’ve also included a link to the actual report in case you think there’s something in it which could support your claim.
To add another quote
So it’s not primarily middle class retirees retiring on their savings. It’s lower class people relying on government subsidies.
I’ll add that a reduced incentive to work is not a universal or unlimited good thing. But in the instance and level that the CBO predicts, it seems like a good thing to me.
Oh would you get over yourself. My entire point is actually that your condescending attitude is an impediment to a productive conversation. You continue to prove me right with each post. What goals do you have for this thread? Just to insult as many people as possible? You’re doing a pretty bang up job of it, but I’m not entirely sure what the ultimate purpose may be.
The CBO report does not back up this statement. In fact, the CBO was very clear to state that they made no attempt to determine the relative weights of these effects.
That is the crux of the issue. How much of this is correcting an existing distortion (people working when they didn’t want to because they needed insurance and the private market was broken) versus creating a new distortion (people working less to maintain subsidies and avoid the higher effective marginal tax rates). From what I can tell nobody, including the CBO, knows.
He’s smarter than you. This can be repeatedly demonstrated. He posts crisp, clear and lucid examinations of the facts, arguments so utterly sound and well grounded that any disagreement is the result of a failure to appreciate the clarity of the argument. If you were smarter, you might very well gasp with astonishment and reverse your opinion immediately, to accord with reason and logic. But you are not, so you don’t. More’s the pity.
Your failure to appreciate this only demonstrates the superiority of a mind that you cannot truly engage.
You accused me of “disagreeing with the head of the CBO about what his agency’s report says”, and when I demonstrated that this was incorrect you proceeded to drop that issue entirely, in favor of taking up an unrelated issue entirely, with no acknowledgment of the new tack.
IMO this type of weaseling is an even bigger impediment to productive conversation than my condescending attitude. YMMV.
I did not see this in the CBO report. Can you quote the portion of the report where this is stated?
You are not getting it. My point in this thread is about your posting style. Your condescension of everyone that disagrees with you will never allow a constructive debate. Constantly telling everyone to ‘read up on it’ and ‘educate yourself’ as if you alone posses the knowledge and wisdom needed to understand the topic under discussion prevents any real debate and just results in an insult and snark fest. Of course if that’s what you want, then I guess its a success. Here I thought this board was about intelligent people coming together to discuss and debate the issues of the day. Evidently its actually the Fotheringay-Phipps brilliance show. Who knew you were the only smart person on the board?
Bullshit. I’m not reading a “left-wing spin”. I’m listening to how the head of the CBO, the person most qualified to do so, interprets the data. Look, you said this:
What’s striking about **the latest CBO reports showing the ACA leading to millions of fewer jobs **
That is unequivocally, indisputably, wrong.
Don’t lump me in with those people, it’s just the most convenient link I had on hand. But okay, you want other sources? Here.
Cadetifacts rates this statement “false”.
Except that this, while an otherwise valid point about the nature of U6 unemployment, is not in the CBO’s report.
There’s nothing in your latest post that is not a misunderstanding which has already been addressed in this thread. If you still don’t understand it, it’s unlikely that you will. I’m not going round and round on this.
I know people like this, bet you do too. Not the sort of thing you talk about with a co-worker over lunch, how you hate your job, hate being there, but absolutely need the health insurance. Maybe not even for yourself, perhaps your SO, perhaps your child.
Think of the power that puts in the employer’s hands. If he knows about your situation, how you are trapped by your insurance needs, has he any incentive to reward your performance? Any reason, beyond the goodness of his corporate heart, to give you a raise? Knowing full well he has you by the short and curlies?
Now, that example offered of someone who has sufficient where-with-all for modest and comfortable retirement, does not actually need to money from his employment, but dare not threaten his insurance. If he leaves his job and it is taken by someone who does need the money, isnt that a net positive?
That’s true but that situation does not result in a net decrease in employment. One employed guy retires, and one unemployed guy gets a job and the number of employed people remains the same.
But the CBO report says there will be a net decrease in employment. This is not the result of that type of situation.