- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 2/7/14 at 1:04 pm to 90proofprofessional
Link
So I think what you are trying to say is that the report says there will be less hours worked among full time employees due to the bill.
What I am saying is that is true, they work less hours (in an hours based salary job) which will lower there income, making them eligible for subsidies that will give them more money then if they work those hours they normally would have. This could be full time workers going to part time, it could be full time workers not putting in over time. But it means they can work less and get more income, this is due to unbalanced subsidy program.
Maybe not everyone does this. But for the people it applies to, it is very clear to them that the most money they can make (with that job) is to lower there hours and take a subsidy. That is an incentive to not work.
quote:
As workers transition from part time work (without benefits) to full time work (with health benefits) many workers will actually lose income in the form of the subsidies that they will have to forgo (and the additional fact that lower wage workers, who are in lower tax brackets, won’t benefit as much from the implicit subsidy they will get from the special tax treatment of health benefits bought at work)
So I think what you are trying to say is that the report says there will be less hours worked among full time employees due to the bill.
What I am saying is that is true, they work less hours (in an hours based salary job) which will lower there income, making them eligible for subsidies that will give them more money then if they work those hours they normally would have. This could be full time workers going to part time, it could be full time workers not putting in over time. But it means they can work less and get more income, this is due to unbalanced subsidy program.
Maybe not everyone does this. But for the people it applies to, it is very clear to them that the most money they can make (with that job) is to lower there hours and take a subsidy. That is an incentive to not work.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 1:07 pm to BobBoucher
quote:
FYI - the article i linked indicates the GOP plan contains the same "disencentives" to work and provided a link.
My disclaimer is I havent looked to see if its legit. If true, its kinda hard to slam the left for disencentives to work when the conservative plan has the same.
I hope the GOP plan does not include this. Pretty hypocritically of them (historically speaking) if they do. Then again hypocrite and politician seem to be synonymous
This post was edited on 2/7/14 at 1:08 pm
Posted on 2/7/14 at 1:14 pm to BobBoucher
It's not a legit article. Ezra Klein is not an economist. He's a journalist. He works for the Washington Post...very pro Obama and extremely left wing.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 1:15 pm to Zach
Nice job Zach. But you seem to have forgotten the part where she would blame swasss-tee-kaaa wielding Tea Party racists for the rampage.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 1:16 pm to Stuckinthe90s
quote:
So I think what you are trying to say is that the report says there will be less hours worked among full time employees due to the bill.
that's not exactly what it says, and the distinction makes a pretty big difference. it says there will be less total hours worked. that's what they estimate, verbatim.
the GOP's narrative on this seems quite fair to me, given all the foot-stomping pelosi and obama did when they called it a job-killer.
i do agree that they are being totally hypocritical where they do not admit that this effect will also be present in any other bill they propose, if it tries to decouple health insurance from employment. decoupling them may be a worthy goal, but it does not come without some cost
ETA: side point. thinking about this, it seems that the existence of subsidized employer-based coverage as an incentive to work was possibly quite an underrated driver of the relatively low average unemployment rates in the US compared to many other advanced economies.
This post was edited on 2/7/14 at 1:22 pm
Posted on 2/7/14 at 1:40 pm to 90proofprofessional
90proprofessional, I kind of see your point now and tend to agree. To me, the dem spin is on the micro level... 1 worker choose to work less hours because ACA allows him to do that now and pursue other interests.
The republican narrative is on the macro level. 2.5 million full time(40 hour/week) jobs will be lost. and this is calculated by the reduction in X/Y=2.5 million where X = total reduction of labor hours and Y = yearly hours 1 full time worker works.
I tend to agree now that the article shows that the republicans spin is fair. On the Macro level there are 2.5 million jobs that are going unworked. Pubs should still hammer home the micro affects which is it that it is an incentive not to work.
The republican narrative is on the macro level. 2.5 million full time(40 hour/week) jobs will be lost. and this is calculated by the reduction in X/Y=2.5 million where X = total reduction of labor hours and Y = yearly hours 1 full time worker works.
I tend to agree now that the article shows that the republicans spin is fair. On the Macro level there are 2.5 million jobs that are going unworked. Pubs should still hammer home the micro affects which is it that it is an incentive not to work.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 1:43 pm to Zach
quote:
It's not a legit article. Ezra Klein is not an economist. He's a journalist. He works for the Washington Post...very pro Obama and extremely left wing.
thats obvious, but if the quoted excerpts from the CBO are accurate, it exposes the conservative spin on the CBO report.
Here's the deal with politics: no one is going to air their dirty laundry and tell you when they are being dishonest or spinning a story to steer public opinion to their favor. Thats what the other side has to do.
Anyone who believes anything coming out of politics these days without doing some investigative work on their own is a sucker. (i personally think politicians think we're all a bunch of idiots becuase they think we'll buy it and we're too dumb to find out and form our own opinions).
You have to do a little work and read up on both sides to get a more accurate picture.
This post was edited on 2/7/14 at 1:46 pm
Posted on 2/7/14 at 1:49 pm to Stuckinthe90s
agree that the lost output with a lost job is offset to some degree at the micro level by (e.g.) enjoyment from leisure time, and it's not like CBO makes any attempt to measure happiness
really the only reason i posted here is to say that although the term "job lock" from employer-insurance is dramatic, there is some truth to it
Posted on 2/7/14 at 2:16 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:
although the term "job lock" from employer-insurance is dramatic, there is some truth to it
agreed. subsidies aside, there are folks who work just to maintain affordable healthcare. If those folks are in a state where Obamacare has made it cheaper, they may no longer be "locked" in to their employment.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 2:51 pm to BobBoucher
quote:There are also people that work to maintain their house, their food, and their other expenses. Why should medical care be treated different than any other expense?
agreed. subsidies aside, there are folks who work just to maintain affordable healthcare.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 3:09 pm to TygerTyger
quote:
She's been mocked for years now for her repeated claims that Obamacare is an entrepreneurial bill because it would let Americans quit their jobs to, among other things, "write poetry."
So if I want to start a business, I should save up my money, open up the business, but then keep showing up at my old job every day?
The fact conservatives laugh in the face of the problems of most Americans is precisely why you can't win the White House.
In the case of job-lock, business benefits. If your employees are trapped in their job because leaving it would mean loss of health coverage, you can get away with paying them less. So I can see why Republicans would favor policies that are pro-job-lock.
This post was edited on 2/7/14 at 3:13 pm
Posted on 2/7/14 at 3:20 pm to BobBoucher
quote:Are you under the impression that analogy is the least bit applicable in terms of our economy?
So you own a business making widgets. Youre a profitable business owner becuase youre very efficient. You have the right amount of employees working to meet your widget demand.
You provide healthcare coverage for your employees. One of your employees leaves becuase he no longer requires employment from you to obtain healthcare. he can now get his own.
Now youre producing less widgets and you risk not meeting your demand. What are you going to do with his hours? Is that job "lost"?
Posted on 2/7/14 at 3:42 pm to NC_Tigah
FLOWER POWER !!! Make Love Not Widgets!
Posted on 2/7/14 at 3:49 pm to SpidermanTUba
I can work somewhere and get coverage for my whole family for $250 / month with a $1000 deductible. Or I can go through the ACA exchange and get a plan for $1100 / month (including subsidies) and a $5000 deductible.
Thanks, Obamacare!
Thanks, Obamacare!
Posted on 2/7/14 at 4:19 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
In the case of job-lock, business benefits. If your employees are trapped in their job because leaving it would mean loss of health coverage, you can get away with paying them less. So I can see why Republicans would favor policies that are pro-job-lock.
How does cutting back on hours keep a person less job locked? Seems to me, more hours worked = more income = more savings = better opportunity to afford a new job venture.
Also, you are assuming these 2.5 million are all entrepreneurs? That's fricking idiotic.
And WTF is job locked anyway? What idiot quits his job before he finds another job? Oh wait, i know, liberals such as yourself.
I'm tired of subsidizing your shitty decisions. Be a fricking grown up.
and you defending Carney's statements is proof of your sheer stupidity. There is no other way of saying it. I'm not one for namecalling in a debate, but there is not a better word than to just state the obvious, you are plain and simple, stupid, if you support this. FACT.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 4:25 pm to BugAC
Dude, you seem angry. But there is a long line of poets who might be willing to write you something that gives you peace and tranquility.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 4:30 pm to fontell
quote:
there is a long line of poets who might be willing to write you something that gives you peace and tranquility.
I did chuckle.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 4:34 pm to fontell
quote:
But there is a long line of poets who might be willing to write you something that gives you peace and tranquility.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 4:47 pm to fontell
quote:
Dude, you seem angry.
I wouldn't call it anger. More sheer frustration at the stupidity from the left. If the left announced that 10,000 people died from starvation weekly directly related to ACA, and Jay Carney spouted that this is a good thing because it means less pollution of the labor market, i have ZERO doubt that the lefties on here, like tuba, would be coming on here championing the administrations propaganda.
Carney's statements can only be defended if you are stupid. That is fact.
quote:
stu·pid·i·ty
st(y)o?o'pidite/Submit
noun
1.
behavior that shows a lack of good sense or judgment.
The simpletons agree with Carney, because they lack the sense to actually think a little deeper past Carney's comments. From a simple taxing perspective, they do not look at the long term damage reduced working hours do, nor do they look at the economic impact from the loss of taxes due to those reduction of hours. They also do not see the lack of taxes coming in due to less disposable income to buy on taxable goods and services. They do not look at the reduction of income taxes. They do not see the lack of payroll taxes coming in. They also, do not look at the increased tax load for the worker to subsidize the obama socialized medicine pipe dream. Those increased taxes further drives up prices of goods/services, and reduces profitability, which in turn creates jobs/raises/and wealth. And with those missing taxes, the governments long term spending has not decreased 1 red cent.
They also do not see the #1 problem with this whole thing; the direct loss of motivation to work. If the government champions less hours because working more hours would mean you might have to pay for your own insurance, then the idiot masses will then cause the complete failure of our economic system, per paragraph 1.
So again, i state with absolute 100% certainty. Anyone who defends Carney and this liberal bullshite are STUPID. Ergo, liberals are stupid.
This post was edited on 2/7/14 at 4:49 pm
Page 3 of 4
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News