hilarious that McMark can only link to 1) talkingpointsmemo 2) DailyKos 3)thinkprogress all extremely biased sites who are trying to spin the information to appease their liberal readers.
CBO director: Falling work force participation --- including Obamacare --- will be 'central factor' in slowing economic growth. Getting ugly. Obama needs to bring up gay marriage or the George Zimmerman/DMX story asap to deflect... http://washingtonexaminer.com/cbo-d...or-in-slowing-economic-growth/article/2543524
After that little turd of a post you post a Washington Examiner opinion piece? LOL!!! texxie you so funny You probably should go back to posting Fox articles
Does CBS work for you? Congressional Budget Office chief Doug Elmendorf confirmed that over a 10-year window, the Affordable Care Act is expected to reduce national deficits and consequently lead to stronger growth.
lol did you even read that? They said that Obamacare will reduce the workforce. Full stop. Then they tried to claim that other parts of Obamacare could reduce deficits. Wouldn't it be better if it reduced deficits and didn't shrink the workforce? lol the spin on this is absolutely hilarious
What do you care about shrinking the work force? Aren't you freaks all about maximizing profit with less overhead? You should be thrilled. But again, the report is not saying what you want it to say so roll on clown show.
We really don't know what the outcome will be. All we know is that SOMETHING had to give with rising medical costs and an aging population and second that the "ObamaCare" is here to stay.
Bottom line that texxx just can't seem to wrap his head around: CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf says that Obamacare produces a net increase in employment, and cuts the deficit.
texx are you confusing a reduction in the supply of labor with a reduction in the demand for labor? Did you know that there are people who are unemployed who will happily fill these lost hours?
Do you disagree with that? If someone decides to be self-employed or retire, do you consider that a bad thing? Can you explain who is hurt by someone retiring from their job and letting a person who actually needs a job fill it and why this is a bad thing?
No, no, no. Don't you realize that if someone decides to work 1/2 time because their not terrified of losing their health insurance, it is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE for their employer to hire someone else to work those other hours.
It's not so clear cut. We are talking about giving people incentives to not work. I don't think that's a good thing, in general, even if you agree with what caused it (ACA in this case). Let's say a law you disagreed with cauased people to stop working. What then? Would you be ok with a lower labor force participation rate?
Tell them to work for one more year, save an entire 200K, and that will hold them over until they are on medicare. If 200K isn't enough, tell them to move where all 30 year old wanting to retire move, Portland. Your story is basically unbelievable though. What job has a 200K salary not offering health benefits. Even a small business where the owner is drawing a 200K salary should have enough employees to get a group rate. Your story has some holes.
If they stopped working by choice, I'm fine with it. If they only were working to have access to something that they would now have access to without working, then I don't see a problem. Someone else will take their job.
Heh, way to pivot to obfuscate the fact that you were wrong. I guess you should read before you plead, brothaman. First the ACA is no more "giving people an incentive not to work" than a law prohibiting indentured servitude. There's no rational reason why health care is employer provided, it's a historical accident. And as a consequence, instead of purchasing health care from alternative sources, people are forced to bundle it in with their labor force partciipation in the current state. Why does that make any sense? Making the market for health care better so that non-employer provided isn't "giving people an incentive not to work" and driving them into collective farm indolence. There's many remaining incentives to work - including, say food, shelter, clothing, and basically everything else that work generally enables you to have if you're moderately familiar with this concept we call "income." Are you really worried that people will ignore work now, and indulge in a live of blissful poverty? Anyway - yes, I'm ok with people not participating in the labor force because they would rather work fewer hours and do other things, because they have access to more viable health care options. The real question is why you're opposed to it? Could you unpack your germinating participation rate theory? Is there anything else we need to bundle with working in order to boost the participation rate to your standards? Broadband access maybe? Premium Cable? Dodge Durangos?
