quote:
The CBO was very clear about what this means: “The estimated reduction stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor workers choose to supply, rather than from a net drop in business’ demand for labor, so it will appear almost entirely as a reduction in labor force participation and in hours worked relative to what would have occurred otherwise rather than as an increase in unemployment.”

Here's another example of conservative spin:

quote:
The conservative Washington Times, for instance, featured this headline: “Obamacare will push 2 million workers out of labor market.” That has the distinction of being not only untrue but also the very opposite of the truth. Workers are choosing to cut back hours -- not being pushed to do so.

Both parties do this... its no secret. you just gotta do a little work to understand the truth.

here's the link to the Yahoo aricle where i found this info. LINK

This post was edited on 2/7/14 at 10:04 am

3 ...

Report Post

Posted by Jbird

In Bidenville with EthanL

Member since Oct 2012

73552 posts

Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:04 am to BobBoucher

quote:

The CBO was very clear about what this means: “The estimated reduction stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor workers choose to supply, rather than from a net drop in business’ demand for labor, so it will appear almost entirely as a reduction in labor force participation and in hours worked relative to what would have occurred otherwise rather than as an increase in unemployment.”

Link please.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by 90proofprofessional

Member since Mar 2004

24445 posts

Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:10 am to BobBoucher

quote:
you just gotta do a little work to understand the truth

if you know that, you oughtta know then that reading Ezra Klein is far from sufficient, being an unabashed spinner himself.

the prediction is a reduction of hours worked calculated to full-time equivalent as a direct result of the law. if you think calling that "jobs" is spin, call it what you want. but those hours will not be worked, IOW jobs not paid for and jobs not done. criticize their methods if you want, but hours worked is what they are estimating. calling that "jobs lost" seems quite reasonable to me.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Stuckinthe90s

Dallas, TX

Member since Apr 2013

2580 posts

Posted on 2/7/14 at 11:26 am to BobBoucher

Bob is correct. The GOP tried to make this fit their narrative that it was reducing jobs, which the ACA does, but this report's results were about something different. The GOP should have said what this article speaks too, and unfortunately what the dems were able to somehow spin into a good thing, Obamacare is a incentive to NOT WORK. no reason to spin that because it is exactly what the study is saying.

2.5 million Americans will be put into a position where it is optimal for them to work less hours in order to qualify for subsidies for health insurance. This is saying that they will have more "income" by working a little less, taking advantage of an unbalanced government subsidy package.

This is one of the things that Republicans have be critical about government handouts/benefits/subsidies(your choice of verbage), but they have a study that says that is exactly what ACA is doing and they screwed it up. Way to go

This post was edited on 2/7/14 at 11:28 am

3 ...

Report Post

Political Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board