Martin Hyde is correct. Since this is GQ, the statement that Obamacare will cost jobs is not saying that Obamacare is good, bad, or neither. Econ 101 teaches you that any tax introduces a market inefficiency and causes a deadweight economic loss. Obviously you need some taxes to run a government, so some of this inefficiency and deadweight loss is an unfortunate reality.
Obamacare will not cost jobs. Back-of-the-envelope musings about “Econ 101” does not change that; it’s not true. If you want to claim otherwise, you need a cite.
The GQ answer is that we don’t know for sure whether Obamacare will ultimately involve the government spending more money, much less the vastly harder to answer question of the net impact on jobs. It makes complicated changes to an existing complicated system, so all we have are educated guesses.
If you hear people assuming that PPACA will cost employers more, for example, you know that those people are making guesses without telling you why. Here’s an incomplete list of factors that will affect the OP’s question, which we cannot yet comprehensively analyze:
-whether we will see improved health outcomes
-the effect of better health outcomes on average on economic productivity
-the average change in cost for businesses to provide coverage after subsidies
-whether there will be efficiency gains, in both the labor and medical market
-whether those efficiency gains will translate into higher productivity
-whether health costs will be reduced
-the effect of reduced health costs on the other variables
Most mainstream Republicans are of the view that PPACA won’t improve health outcomes, won’t reduce costs, won’t lead to efficiencies in changing jobs or finding the right insurance, won’t adequately subsidize the cost of coverage, will end up costing the government millions, etc. etc… All these things are possible, and if the GOP are right then Obamacare will cost net jobs. But the opposites results are also possible.
It comes down to how you expect a bunch of different things to shake out. For example, do you think that making it so someone with a pre-existing condition can change jobs without losing insurance coverage will be a net gain for the economy? Or do you think it will just inflate the cost of insurance, swamping out any gain from labor mobility? The answers to this and dozens of similar questions control the result.
Nope. Anyone can argue anything endlessly. With questions like this, you have to fall back on general principles because the specifics are too easily argued, and some folks are prone to argue a specific way based on their political leanings.
The studies those links are based on are conducted by non-partisan groups with expertise in estimating the budgetary impact of policies, such as the Congressional Budget Office. They conclude Obamacare will not increase unemployment. If you want to ignore those results because “taxes cost jobs, QED!!” then that’s up to you, but it’s nonsense.
I’m not sure if you actually read my post, but my point was that there is no denying that a government tax on a good or service creates a deadweight loss that lowers the economic efficiency of the market. At $20/hour X number of employers get a marginal utility high enough to justify the marginal cost of hiring an employee. At $21/hour (X-Y) number of employers receive enough marginal utility to justify the marginal cost of hiring an employee at that wage (or continuing to employ someone at the new higher wage.) “Y” represents the number of employers who derive enough marginal utility at the first price point but who do not derive enough marginal utility at the second price point.
It is undeniable economic fact that more expensive labor, ceteris paribus, will create some employers (purchasers of labor) who would buy at the previous price point but will not or cannot buy at the new price point.
However, I go on in my post to explain the specifics of why Obamacare is not projected to result in much if any job loss (I say projected because we’re doing a “best guess”, there is no factual answer to whether it will cause job loss until after the employer mandate becomes law, obviously–FWIW I agree with the projections.)
You almost seem to be suggesting Obamacare will not create a job loss because “the ECON 101 argument does not hold water”, and that just is not the case. The ECON 101 argument does hold water and it is absolute, undeniable fact. However if you actually pay close attention, you’ll notice the ECON 101 argument is making assumptions to illustrate a point. I go on in my post to explain the actual situation with Obamacare which elucidates us on the actual situation, so we know that the reason Obamacare is not likely to result in significant job loss is not because the ECON 101 point about deadweight loss is untrue, but because in the current market most employers who would be affected by this already pay health insurance costs for their employees so there is not an actual increase in their marginal costs. There is nothing in any cite anyone has brought forth in this thread which disproves the truth of ECON 101’s lessons about deadweight loss. As I said, you can accept ECON 101 without believing Obamacare will cost jobs.
If more people overall the population are covered by legitimate insurance, then the hospitals can lower prices for services because they don’t have to hedge against uncovered procedures, and the resulting administrative cost associated with them. With lowered prices, industry can hire more people. Right now some companies that don’t provide insurance will have their cost of business increased, true. However a much larger segment of the economy will see benefits when their cost of providing insurance lowers. The delinquent companies that have had their business costs subsidized by other companies will gradually decrease (or should, if “obamacare” is enforced effectively).
However, Obamacare is not single-payer healthcare no matter how you slice it. The OP asked about Obamacare.
You should probably read the post that one was in response to.
Look buddy, if you tell me you are going to drop a weight off the Leaning Tower of Pisa, then I 'm going to tell you that that weight will tend to move toward the ground (no matter what parachutes you’ve attached to it or ramps you’ve constructed underneath it).
But in that case you’d be right. Whereas saying “Obamacare will increase unemployment” is wrong. This stuff is complex; it is not obvious, no matter how convenient it would be if it was.
Suggest moving thread to GD.