- 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
re: "Job Lock" ? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:04 am to BobBoucher
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:04 am to BobBoucher
quote:Link please.
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.”
1
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:04 am to Jbird
quote:
Link please.
i just updated the post with it.
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.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:12 am to TygerTyger
Real Message Nancy Pelosi:
Quit your job. Do what you want. Be Happy. The Republicans and their base will pick up the tab from now own because we outnumber them.
Quit your job. Do what you want. Be Happy. The Republicans and their base will pick up the tab from now own because we outnumber them.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:17 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:
criticize their methods if you want, but hours worked is what they are estimating. calling that "jobs lost" seems quite reasonable to me.
The CBO flat says that it is a reduction in labor participation as opposed to jobs being eliminated from the economy.
which is why i brought in the retirement analogy. If we allow people to build retirements, we're enabling them to work less becuase they have another alternative.
Thats less hours worked right? ...or "jobs lost" by your definintion.
So retirement must be bad.
quote:
but those hours will not be worked
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"?
This post was edited on 2/7/14 at 10:23 am
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:17 am to jamboybarry
quote:
Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance.
-Nancy Pelosi
Seriously frick this bitch. Watching my premium double, then getting a letter that my current insurance was canceled and that in order to continue individual insurance it would cost me triple my previous premium is PRECISELY the reason why I put my plans to be a self employed photographer on hold. The only way I could afford to be responsible about my healthcare was to remain employed at my current job and keep trying to build up savings.
Probably put me behind by a few years, and God knows what will happen when the employer mandate goes through.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:26 am to veerbone
quote:
Quit your job. Do what you want. Be Happy.
It is the group of people that still view Haight Ashbury that provider her with the votes to be in her position in the House, and they have been living by her beliefs or decades turning SF into a tourists shithole of addicts and alcoholics panhandling their asses of wherever they turn. The hipsters of that group have expanded northward to Portland and Seattle.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:28 am to BobBoucher
quote:
The CBO flat says that it is a reduction in labor participation as opposed to jobs being eliminated from the economy.
incorrect sir. labor supply is the big part of the story, but what they estimate is literally "hours worked," as is explicitly stated in the report. look at the PDF and do a search of the phrase if you doubt this.
now I would agree that wording such as "pushing out of the labor force" is spin. i think the policies supporting employer-based coverage in fact "pushed them in."
quote:
If we allow people to build retirements, we're enabling them to work less becuase they have another alternative.
Thats less hours worked right? ...or "jobs lost" by your definintion.
So retirement must be bad.
Stop saying I said anything was good or bad- I didn't. I'm just pointing out the incentive effects of each. To respond to your hypothetical, I'd alter it slightly and say "yes, subsidizing retirement funds enables people to work less when they are old."
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:34 am to BobBoucher
quote:
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"?
if the law makes the job less valuable to one worker, that means on average that replacing them will be more costly than the previous worker was. this will unambiguously hurt labor demand as well. at the end of so many years, yes, many jobs will go unfilled.
do you think the estimate was too large then? where did they go wrong in modeling it IYO? what should the estimate have looked like?
or, do think hours worked will be unaffected?
or, do you think hours worked is a bad working definition for a job?
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:44 am to TygerTyger
It gets crazier. When the Leftist Instinct reaches ultimate fruition they re-educate you, seize all your private property and kill you. Some centuries they do it 100,000,000 times. Usually your execution is preceded by a lecture.
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
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
Posted on 2/7/14 at 11:30 am to Stuckinthe90s
quote:
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
And there are probably SOME Republicans who think they can win over the, let's call them "government dependant" crowd....like they think they can win over hispanics with amnesty.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 11:43 am to Stuckinthe90s
quote:
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.
Why do you say this? That is not what the report says.
The output they estimate is the reduction in hours worked as a result of the bill, and it is represented in full-time-equivalent jobs.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 11:46 am to Stuckinthe90s
quote:
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
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.
This post was edited on 2/7/14 at 11:47 am
Posted on 2/7/14 at 11:51 am to TygerTyger
quote:Yep.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi says the CBO report vindicates Obamacare, because "this was one of the goals. To give people life, a healthy life, liberty to pursue their happiness. And that liberty is to not be job-locked, but to follow their passion.
The concern used to be for folks trapped in poverty.
Now it's for the unfortunate Americans trapped in jobs.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 11:55 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi says the CBO report vindicates Obamacare, because "this was one of the goals. To give people life, a healthy life, liberty to pursue their happiness. And that liberty is to not be job-locked, but to follow their passion.
quote:
The concern used to be for folks trapped in poverty. Now it's for the unfortunate Americans trapped in jobs.
The thing is, none of those assholes believe this, they just know if they say it then they can count on a majority of the country to vote for them.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 11:59 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Yep.
The concern used to be for folks trapped in poverty.
Now it's for the unfortunate Americans trapped in jobs.
It really is ridiculous when you think about it.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 12:14 pm to TygerTyger
Putting the "fun" in "fundamental change".
It's way more fun to stay home and not work.
It's way more fun to stay home and not work.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 12:17 pm to TygerTyger
quote:Me and Ms. Pelosi have vastly different definitions of liberty and freedom.
And that liberty is to not be job-locked, but to follow their passion.
Apparenlty Ms.Pelosi believe FREEdom means getting free stuff. And liberty means liberating dollars from your neighbors.
Sickening.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 12:21 pm to TygerTyger
quote:
How is it even possible for these Democrats to say this with a straight face?
Hmmm... I tried to think of a spin job that would make Democrats ashamed to attempt. This is the best I can come up with....
Hypothetical: Obama goes nuts because his daughter was not voted homecoming queen at Sidwell Friends School. He storms into the assembly with an AK 47 and mows down 50 of her classmates.
Pelosi, at the press conference the next day: "Well, if you think about it what the President did was actually beneficial for those 50 students. Now, they won't have to worry about being accepted to an Ivy League college; they won't have to worry about finding a good job and a suitable spouse. They won't have to scrimp and save for their children's education. And they won't have to suffer the anguish of growing old and suffering unspeakable discomfort in their final years."
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News