Yes, I don’t think its a particularly bad thing at all. You can read the entire report (Appendix C) here if you’d like: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45010-Outlook2014.pdf
Guess what, iiandyiiii, the CBO report does not say anything even remotely resembling either one of these two statements. Nowhere in the report can you find anything that would suggest either “2 million jobs are going away” or “2 million fewer workers will be looking for jobs”. Nor is there anything that would suggest “2 million are able to retire by choice”. Where exactly do you get your information?
For the board purporting to “fight ignorance” there certainly are lots of left-wingers here spreading it.
From the report:
A few paragraphs later:
Therefore, it’s reasonable to conclude that the reductions in hours worked are almost entirely due to worker’s choice, and not due to amount of jobs available. Based on the estimates, that works out to close to 2 million, so what I said was a reasonable interpretation of the CBO’s report. Probably not all 2 million workers will be retiring – some will take the opportunity to stay at home while their spouse works, and things like that. And the number will certainly not be exactly 2 million (a figure that the CBO does not use) – I am extrapolating. It could be more or fewer workers, because many folks might choose to go from full time to part time voluntarily, because they want to spend more time with family, etc.
All of these are good things, both for people and for the economy.
Terr, you are wrong (not surprisingly).
What you said is absolute and utter bullshit and not in any way close to what CBO reported.
Let me give you a hint. If a 100 million people work 2% less, that’s equivalent, in terms of total work hours to 2 million people stopping work altogether. But it definitely does not mean that “2 million jobs are going away” or “2 million fewer workers will be looking for jobs”. Or that “2 million are able to retire by choice”.
Yours is just an amazingly ignorant (and absolutely wrong) reading of the CBO report. I am not surprised, though.
Your attacks on my post are amazingly ignorant (and absolutely wrong).
I pointed out that it’s not literally 2 million jobs in my last post. It’s the hours equivalent of 2 million jobs. I should have made that distinction the first time I brought it up, but I did the second, so we should all be happy.
My point, that this is good news – workers who can afford to work less will choose to work less – for people and the economy in general, remains, unaffected by your silly attacks.
Love and kisses and rainbow smiles.
Ok yeah, it’s not saying two million actual individual people won’t be working, just that the reduction in net hours worked amounts to merely being the equivalent of 2+ million people not working. Sorry I simplified it too much for you. :rolleyes:
The reasons why there will be such a net reduction in hours, however, is precisely primarily for the reasons I stated (and this is just one of the areas where the CBO supports what I said):
“CBO’s estimate that the ACA will reduce employment
reflects some of the inherent trade-offs involved in
designing such legislation. Subsidies that help lower income
people purchase an expensive product like
health insurance must be relatively large to encourage a
significant proportion of eligible people to enroll.** If those
subsidies are phased out with rising income in order to
limit their total costs, the phaseout effectively raises people’s
marginal tax rates (the tax rates applying to their
last dollar of income), thus discouraging work. In addition,
if the subsidies are financed at least in part by higher
taxes, those taxes will further discourage work or create
other economic distortions**, depending on how the taxes
are designed. Alternatively, if subsidies are not phased out
or eliminated with rising income, then the increase in
taxes required to finance the subsidies would be much
larger.”
In other words, working fewer hours can get people greater health insurance subsidies and lower tax rates, just like I said.
As for the claims that it is because people are going to be able to afford to retire, where is the support for that claim? The CBO report only says that the net impact of retirement choices on the labor supply is not clear. Not that I doubt there will be an effect from subsidies resulting in more retirement, just that there’s no indicators as to how much of those reduced labor hours will actually come from people “being able to afford to retire”.
It is not a “distinction”. It’s just a wrong statement. “2 million fewer workers will be looking for jobs” is not what CBO reported. In fact, it did not report that even 1 million fewer workers will be looking for jobs. Or 100 thousand.
If you want to admit that your post was wrong and take it back - fine. But don’t start with the “not literally”. No, not literally or figuratively. Just wrong.
Terr, are you hanging your quibble on the fact that the CBO is reporting the full-time-equivalent reduction in labor force participation and not differentiating between reduction in hours and complete non-participation? As explained in this quote from the report:
Because OK, that’s true as far as it goes. But the point remains that the report is attributing the reduction in employment due to the ACA almost entirely to a voluntary reduction in supply of labor, not demand for it.
Now there are probably legitimate discussions to be had over the effect of the subsidy scaling and Medicaid expansion on labor participation rates amongst low-income workers. But that’s pretty obviously true of any scheme which relies on scaled incentives - getting the scaling right to minimize any perverse effects on incentives is important. I don’t really think the magnitude implied by this report is worrisome - it’s literally 1% in labor compensation over 7 years (2017-2024).
There are many reasons people choose to leave the labor market under the ACA. Retirement is one of them. (page 123)
I understand that my use of language confused you, and I apologize. I take it back for you, Terr, and you alone. My posts (and my point) remains for those who actually understand the shorthand way I posted. For you, for my last few posts, you can read “2 million” as “the hours equivalent of 2 million” just to make sure you get it.
The CBO report is good news for the economy, and improves the outlook due to effects from the ACA.
Sure. When you raise marginal taxes (which is what CBO is saying ACA does), people will “voluntarily” work less. Or you may say that those increased marginal taxes force people to work less.
This reminds me of people insisting that people “voluntarily” pay taxes. Yeah, right.
Let’s see. Let’s replace it. Here is your new and improved statement:
“the hours equivalent of 2 million fewer workers will be looking for jobs”
Can you explain exactly how that works?
No where in the report does it suggest 2 million people will leave the workforce because their taxes went up.
Sure – the other folks looking for jobs will have the equivalent of about 2 million fewer workers (equivalent, remember, not literal) competing with them.
What proof do you have that people voluntarily reducing their work hours in order to make less money so they can avoid high marginal tax rates and get larger taxpayer subsidies is good for the economy?
I can understand your frustration, Terr. If I opposed the ACA, news like this would bum me out as well.
Did I say that?
Because other jobseekers looking for jobs will have less competition.
ROTFLMAO. The “equivalent” workers are not competing with them. Only “real” workers do.
Where does the CBO report support that?