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.

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by 90proofprofessional

Member since Mar 2004

24445 posts

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

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Taxing Authority

Houston

Member since Feb 2010

57517 posts

Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:32 pm to Stuckinthe90s

quote:
Pubs should still hammer home the micro affects which is it that it is an incentive not to work.

Here is the deal. I don't care if people want to work. Or not. I have no desire to force people into labor. Zip. Nada. Zilch.

HOWEVER! I don't think the taxpayer (disguised as an insurance payer) should have to shoulder the burden of that person's choice.

Being poor, lazy, shiftless is a perfectly viable option. I don't consider it indicative of one's character. It's their choice. I just don't think it's moral imperative for those of that don't make that choice... to subsidize it.

1 ...

Report Post

Political Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board