Jump to content

CBO: Obamacare Will Cost 2.3 Million Full-Time Jobs


Recommended Posts

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ISSUES grim revised 10-year projection on the economic impact of ObamaCare, predicting that 2.5 million Americans will abandon full-time work — allowing employers to eliminate 2.3 million full-time jobs.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/

 

 

More from the president who never authored a single piece of legislation..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Workers will go from full-time to part time to get subsidies. White house says this is a good idea. Workers will have more time with their families. hahahahaaaaaaaaa. Cut back income to get subsidies. Oblameocare incentives. CBO says 2.5 million jobs gone over 10 years. hahahahahaha. You can't make this up. Toooooo good.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ISSUES grim revised 10-year projection on the economic impact of ObamaCare, predicting that 2.5 million Americans will abandon full-time work — allowing employers to eliminate 2.3 million full-time jobs.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/

 

 

More from the president who never authored a single piece of legislation..

The CBO can't be trusted. Unless it agrees with the current administration, in which case its assessments are beyond reproach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Already been debunked by FactChecker at Washington Post.

 

 

Three Pinocchios

 

pinocchio_3.jpg

Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions

 

 

No, CBO did not say Obamacare will kill 2 million jobs

  • By Glenn Kessler
  • February 4 at 2:07 pm

2013-09-29T011301Z_01_LOA014_RTRIDSP_3_U

(Jonathan Alcorn/Reuters)

This column has been updated.

Here we go again. During the 2012 campaign, The Fact Checker had to repeatedly explain that the Congressional Budget Office never said that the Affordable Care Act “killed” 800,000 jobs by 2021. Now, the CBO has released an updated estimate, nearly the triple the size of the earlier one: 2.3 million in 2021.

The inevitable tweets arrived:

This tweet and dozens others were spawned in part by seriously flawed headlines on the Web:

Health-Care Law Expected to Take Greater Toll on Workforce

Obamacare will push 2 million workers out of labor market: CBO

CBO: Obamacare to cost 2.3 million jobs over 10 years

CBO: Lower enrollment, bigger job losses with Obamacare

CBO: O-Care slowing growth, contributing to job losses

The CBO Just Nuked Obamacare

CBO says Obamacare will add to deficit, create reluctant work force

CBO nearly triples estimate of working hours lost by 2021 due to Affordable Care Act

Obamacare Will Cost 2.5 Million Jobs: Report

Congressional Budget Office: Obamacare A Tax On Workers

What’s really going on here? Hang on, because it’s a confusing issue.

The Facts

First, this is not about jobs. It’s about workers — and the choices they make.

The CBO’s estimate is mostly the result of an analysis of the impact of the law on the supply of labor. That means how many people choose to participate in the work force. In other words, the nonpartisan agency is examining whether the law increases or decreases incentives for people to work.

 

One big issue: the health insurance subsidies in the law. That’s a substantial benefit that decreases as people earn more money, so at a certain point, a person has to choose between earning more money or continuing to get the maximum help with health insurance payments. In other words, people might work longer and harder, but actually earn no more, or earn even less, money. That is a disincentive to work. (The same thing happens when people qualify for food stamps or other social services.)

 

Thus, some people might decide to work part-time, not full time, in order to keep getting health-care subsidies. Thus, they are reducing their supply of labor to the market. Other people near retirement age might decide they no longer need to hold onto their job just because it provides health insurance, and they also leave the work force.

 

Look at this way: If someone says they decided to leave their job for personal reasons, most people would not say they “lost” their jobs. They simply decided not to work.

The CBO, in its sober fashion, virtually screams that this is not about jobs. (Note the sections in bold face.)

 

“The estimated reduction stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply, rather than from a net drop in businesses’ 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 (that is,
more workers seeking but not finding jobs
) or underemployment (such as
part-time workers who would prefer to work more hours per week
).”

 

 

The CBO did look at the effect on demand for labor (i.e., jobs) but said the effects are mostly on the margins or are not measurable. In fact, in contrast to a common GOP talking point, the CBO declares that “there is no compelling evidence that part-time employment has increased as a result of the ACA,” though it notes the data may be murky because the employer mandate was delayed until 2015.

 

All things being equal, in a normally functioning economy, the total demand for jobs would equal 95 percent of the supply of jobs. So advocates of the Affordable Care Act should not jump to the conclusion that departing workers will be simply replaced by other workers. In fact, competition for workers will initially lead to upward pressure on wages. But over time, the nation does end up with a slightly smaller economy.

 

Finally, we should note that the figures (2 million, etc.) are shorthand for full-time equivalent workers — a combination of two conclusions: fewer people looking for work and some people choosing to work fewer hours. The CBO added those two things and produced a hard number, but it actually does not mean 2 million fewer workers.

 

In fact, no one really knows what percentage will leave the work force entirely and what percentage will shift to part-time work, making it difficult to predict how this will shake out in the end.

The Pinocchio Test

The Fact Checker takes no position on the implications of the CBO’s analysis. Some might believe that the overall impact of the health law on employment is bad because it would be encouraging people — some 2.3 million – not to work. Indeed, the decline in the workforce participation rate has been of concern to economists, as the baby boom generation leaves the work force, and the health-care law appears to exacerbate that trend.

Moreover, the argument could go, this would hurt the nation’s budget because 2.3 million fewer people will pay taxes on their earnings. That’s certainly an intellectually solid argument — though others might counter that universal health care is worth a reduction in overall employment — but it’s not at all the same as saying that all of these jobs would be lost. Some jobs will go away, but the actual number is unclear because of the unknown interaction between part-time and full-time work.

 

Once again, we award Three Pinocchios to anyone who deliberately gets this wrong.

Three Pinocchios

 

pinocchio_3.jpg

(About our rating scale)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Already been debunked by FactChecker at Washington Post.

 

 

Three Pinocchios

 

pinocchio_3.jpg

Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions

 

 

No, CBO did not say Obamacare will kill 2 million jobs

  • By Glenn Kessler
  • February 4 at 2:07 pm

2013-09-29T011301Z_01_LOA014_RTRIDSP_3_U

(Jonathan Alcorn/Reuters)

This column has been updated.

Here we go again. During the 2012 campaign, The Fact Checker had to repeatedly explain that the Congressional Budget Office never said that the Affordable Care Act “killed” 800,000 jobs by 2021. Now, the CBO has released an updated estimate, nearly the triple the size of the earlier one: 2.3 million in 2021.

The inevitable tweets arrived:

This tweet and dozens others were spawned in part by seriously flawed headlines on the Web:

Health-Care Law Expected to Take Greater Toll on Workforce

Obamacare will push 2 million workers out of labor market: CBO

CBO: Obamacare to cost 2.3 million jobs over 10 years

CBO: Lower enrollment, bigger job losses with Obamacare

CBO: O-Care slowing growth, contributing to job losses

The CBO Just Nuked Obamacare

CBO says Obamacare will add to deficit, create reluctant work force

CBO nearly triples estimate of working hours lost by 2021 due to Affordable Care Act

Obamacare Will Cost 2.5 Million Jobs: Report

Congressional Budget Office: Obamacare A Tax On Workers

What’s really going on here? Hang on, because it’s a confusing issue.

The Facts

First, this is not about jobs. It’s about workers — and the choices they make.

The CBO’s estimate is mostly the result of an analysis of the impact of the law on the supply of labor. That means how many people choose to participate in the work force. In other words, the nonpartisan agency is examining whether the law increases or decreases incentives for people to work.

 

One big issue: the health insurance subsidies in the law. That’s a substantial benefit that decreases as people earn more money, so at a certain point, a person has to choose between earning more money or continuing to get the maximum help with health insurance payments. In other words, people might work longer and harder, but actually earn no more, or earn even less, money. That is a disincentive to work. (The same thing happens when people qualify for food stamps or other social services.)

 

Thus, some people might decide to work part-time, not full time, in order to keep getting health-care subsidies. Thus, they are reducing their supply of labor to the market. Other people near retirement age might decide they no longer need to hold onto their job just because it provides health insurance, and they also leave the work force.

 

Look at this way: If someone says they decided to leave their job for personal reasons, most people would not say they “lost” their jobs. They simply decided not to work.

The CBO, in its sober fashion, virtually screams that this is not about jobs. (Note the sections in bold face.)

 

“The estimated reduction stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply, rather than from a net drop in businesses’ 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 (that is,
more workers seeking but not finding jobs
) or underemployment (such as
part-time workers who would prefer to work more hours per week
).”

 

 

The CBO did look at the effect on demand for labor (i.e., jobs) but said the effects are mostly on the margins or are not measurable. In fact, in contrast to a common GOP talking point, the CBO declares that “there is no compelling evidence that part-time employment has increased as a result of the ACA,” though it notes the data may be murky because the employer mandate was delayed until 2015.

 

All things being equal, in a normally functioning economy, the total demand for jobs would equal 95 percent of the supply of jobs. So advocates of the Affordable Care Act should not jump to the conclusion that departing workers will be simply replaced by other workers. In fact, competition for workers will initially lead to upward pressure on wages. But over time, the nation does end up with a slightly smaller economy.

 

Finally, we should note that the figures (2 million, etc.) are shorthand for full-time equivalent workers — a combination of two conclusions: fewer people looking for work and some people choosing to work fewer hours. The CBO added those two things and produced a hard number, but it actually does not mean 2 million fewer workers.

 

In fact, no one really knows what percentage will leave the work force entirely and what percentage will shift to part-time work, making it difficult to predict how this will shake out in the end.

The Pinocchio Test

The Fact Checker takes no position on the implications of the CBO’s analysis. Some might believe that the overall impact of the health law on employment is bad because it would be encouraging people — some 2.3 million – not to work. Indeed, the decline in the workforce participation rate has been of concern to economists, as the baby boom generation leaves the work force, and the health-care law appears to exacerbate that trend.

Moreover, the argument could go, this would hurt the nation’s budget because 2.3 million fewer people will pay taxes on their earnings. That’s certainly an intellectually solid argument — though others might counter that universal health care is worth a reduction in overall employment — but it’s not at all the same as saying that all of these jobs would be lost. Some jobs will go away, but the actual number is unclear because of the unknown interaction between part-time and full-time work.

 

Once again, we award Three Pinocchios to anyone who deliberately gets this wrong.

Three Pinocchios

 

pinocchio_3.jpg

(About our rating scale)

 

 

FACT CHECK AND THE WASHINGTON COMPOST ARE NOT CREDIBLE SOURSES LOL YOU IDIOT LIBS LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Don't forget that we will have part time jobs and more time with our families...

 

That is the point; a lot of people only want to work part-time or not at all, but they have to because they need the insurance. At the school where I work, many of the women were still working because their husbands went on to the Medicare plan, and they weren't eligible. When they could buy insurance off the exchange, everyone put in for their retirement. About 50% of the support staff have put in for retirement over the next three years, and more are retiring in the two years after that. This will open up all these jobs for younger people who need

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LoreD, on 05 Feb 2014 - 09:52 AM, said:

 

That is the point; a lot of people only want to work part-time or not at all, but they have to because they need the insurance. At the school where I work, many of the women were still working because their husbands went on to the Medicare plan, and they weren't eligible. When they could buy insurance off the exchange, everyone put in for their retirement. About 50% of the support staff have put in for retirement over the next three years, and more are retiring in the two years after that. This will open up all these jobs for younger people who need

 

 

That's the latest BS coming from the government and the left. Obamacare is straight up killing full-time jobs. If you can work part-time and pay your own health insurance go right ahead. You guys still think that every doctor and hospital in America is going to participate in Obamacare when it will bankrupt them. What good is having insurance off of the exhanges if there are no doctors that participate in it. Next your going to propose legislation that forces doctors to participate in a failed program...Good luck. No doctors out there are going to practice medicine the way the government wants them to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The WH and its spokes (man-woman thing) are not in the real world. I know there will be one, BUT what kind of a fool would cut his income in order to get a gov. subsidy? Is it the same type of a person who would have a baby in order to get a larger welfare check? Oblameocare is a perversion of the market. Incentives that would make a person consider cutting their income for a subsidy are bad for the country. In the real world nothing is free. The subsidy is paid for by someone else. Cutting income means less money to spend or invest. The same dope that would cut their income is the person who will be standing on a corner begging in the future. The same spokes (man-woman thing) who says this choice is legitimate will be saying I must feed them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

That's the latest BS coming from the government and the left. Obamacare is straight up killing full-time jobs. If you can work part-time and pay your own health insurance go right ahead. You guys still think that every doctor and hospital in America is going to participate in Obamacare when it will bankrupt them. What good is having insurance off of the exhanges if there are no doctors that participate in it. Next your going to propose legislation that forces doctors to participate in a failed program...Good luck. No doctors out there are going to practice medicine the way the government wants them to.

That sounds good to me, it will help us weed out the doctors that are interested in simply making money, and not the good of their patients. I guess cons think that doctors should have the same scruples as a used car salesman right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you are waiting for months to see a nurse practitioner you might want to consider whether weeding out doctors was a good idea. Doctors should make as much money as they can. Doctors in certain states demand a credit card from medicaid patients. These doctors feel that the reimbursement from the state is not enough for the service performed. Good for them. Doctors in some states are refusing medicare patients for the same reason. Doctors need to live too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the point; a lot of people only want to work part-time or not at all, but they have to because they need the insurance. At the school where I work, many of the women were still working because their husbands went on to the Medicare plan, and they weren't eligible. When they could buy insurance off the exchange, everyone put in for their retirement. About 50% of the support staff have put in for retirement over the next three years, and more are retiring in the two years after that. This will open up all these jobs for younger people who need

Well, of course the cons at the top are furious. Being the only viable providers of health insurance keeps people desperate and in indentured servitude to them, terrified of losing a job. You keep your head down, work for nothing until you drop dead at seventy, and take any abuse they dish out.

 

This is a HUGE benefit to working people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, of course the cons at the top are furious. Being the only viable providers of health insurance keeps people desperate and in indentured servitude to them, terrified of losing a job. You keep your head down, work for nothing until you drop dead at seventy, and take any abuse they dish out.

 

This is a HUGE benefit to working people.

conservatives are the only ones paying for healthcare you dems are all on the public dole

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, of course the cons at the top are furious. Being the only viable providers of health insurance keeps people desperate and in indentured servitude to them, terrified of losing a job. You keep your head down, work for nothing until you drop dead at seventy, and take any abuse they dish out.

 

This is a HUGE benefit to working people.

 

 

If you have an education, you have options...working at McDonalds flipping burgers will not get you far in life but I expect you already know this.

That sounds good to me, it will help us weed out the doctors that are interested in simply making money, and not the good of their patients. I guess cons think that doctors should have the same scruples as a used car salesman right.

 

When you open any business what is the goal of said business....Liber's somewhere along the way skipped economics 101.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

conservatives are the only ones paying for healthcare you dems are all on the public dole

Translation: YOU'RE on the dole.

 

If you have an education, you have options...

Not in a depressed job market. Not if you're 56 years old. Not if you live in a less populated area with only a few options.

 

working at McDonalds flipping burgers will not get you far in life but I expect you already know this.

 

More confessions from our resident con stooges about their sad, failed lives.

 

When you open any business what is the goal of said business....Liber's somewhere along the way skipped economics 101.

 

?? Irrelevant, but I know. You have the talking points your masters shoved up your ass, and you are obediently bleating them out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isabel, on 05 Feb 2014 - 11:17 AM, said:Isabel, on 05 Feb 2014 - 11:17 AM, said:

Translation: YOU'RE on the dole.

 

 

Not in a depressed job market. Not if you're 56 years old. Not if you live in a less populated area with only a few options.

 

working at McDonalds flipping burgers will not get you far in life but I expect you already know this.

 

More confessions from our resident con stooges about their sad, failed lives.

 

When you open any business what is the goal of said business....Liber's somewhere along the way skipped economics 101.

 

?? Irrelevant, but I know. You have the talking points your masters shoved up your ass, and you are obediently bleating them out.

 

Blah, blah, blah, Are you some kind of dominatrix or something? You're obsessed with masters. Can you ever offer anything besides excuses and insults? You have no contribution to this thread or the forum for that matter. I don't live the depressed worthless life that you do, probably why your the angry lesbian all the time. I have a great life, good job and my own healthcare insurance.....Must suck to be you!

 

Slow Christie day Isabel..lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slow Christie day Isabel..lol

Not at all. The latest is that Christie gave an interview with clearly lawyered-up language meant to give him wiggle room about his lies.

 

He is also going on a "national tour", to run away from the daily beatings he is getting in Jersey, and to try to convince the cons that he can still milk gullible stooges like you out of your $7 an hour salaries. LOLOLOL.

 

Thanks for asking!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...