Affordable Care Act Destroys Employment

[StonesRiverSpid]

CBO Report says that "a decline in the number of full-time-equivalent workers of about 2.0 million in 2017, rising to about 2.5 million in 2024." This report underscores the most damaging aspect of this law- the link between employment and health care is broken. The law breaks the 70 year bond between employers and employees.

CBO report shows decline in employment of 2.3 mil

 

[Anachnoid]

None of the businesses have stated they were cutting business hours or production. If an employee is important, that employee will be working 40 hours.

 

[StonesRiverSpid]

Noid, there are two sides to the employment issue. The first is the employee side, in which people are given incentives to not work. This is what the CBO report addresses. I have attached another article, which discusses this very issue. How is it good that people are not given the incentive to work? The long term ramifications for the country are severe. Even the White House says people will not be "stuck working 60 hours a week, but can actually work 35 hours a week and have the same quality of life." How is getting people to work 1/2 as much better? The second issue is the employer side- the act discourages hiring, especially full time employees.

Obamacare destroys the work ethic

 

[Anachnoid]

If employer has a need, its going to make the hire. If employee is special, and maybe more need to prove themselves more, the employee will be rewarded. I believe its called the Jamestown ethic enforced by Capt. John Smith. There is going to be a continuation in the seismic employment shift. Our society has driven the economy by the desire to aquire "things". Well, we dont have that ability to acquire "things" anymore and the economy is down and will continue that way. So its not just the ACA.

 

[StonesRiverSpid]

This article illustrates the issue of increased disincentives to work. Noid, there is a seismic shift away from the work ethic.

The Subsidy Cliff

 

[Stonewall D]

Just saw this. Great, now we have a bunch of stoners in Colorado and Washington who only have the incentive to get stoned, now that their health care is provided for the rest of their lives. I suspect that their parents will eventually kick them out of the house.

 

[Eight Legger]

I wish nothing but the worst for the states that have legalized marijuana. Talk about a ridiculous decision. I hope they all suffer the consequences of it.

 

[WebSpinner]

Eight, do you mostly entirely feel that way or is there a haze in your den as you type?

 

[Eight Legger]

Ha! I completely entirely feel that way. Marijuana isn't the worst thing in the world, but I think it's irresponsible to just give up and legalize it the way all these states are doing. To me, it's like saying, Well, we can't or don't want to enforce anti-drug laws, so let's just make it legal and then we won't have to worry about it anymore. Bad government.

 

[KESpider]

Perhaps it was "bad government" to make it illegal in the first place. Pretty benign relative to alcohol. Huge sums of public money wasted in enforcing prohibitions against it, young lives marred by possession or petty distribution convictions, and profits funneled to some very bad actors. As a society, we would probably be better off (less violent) if booze was illegal and pot legal.

BTW: My views on this subject have changed 180 degrees over the years. Think it is now time to be realistic -at least, decriminalize it.

 

[Eight Legger]

I get that, but I just view legalizing pot as a way of lowering our expectations of society. I also think you'll see a rise in crime and harder drug use in the states that have legalized pot over time.

If your kid starts three fights a week, do you as a parent expect him to shape up until he is starting no fights at all, or will you be happy when he's only starting two fights a week? I guess I feel like the legalization effort is more like the latter, and that's not good enough.

I don't subscribe to the
notion that "laws are fruitless because people who want to break them
always will do so." Of course they will. But you still make laws to set
expectations and boundaries for society, and you create punishments for those who break them.

 

[StonesRiverSpid]

Here is the Wall Street Journal article that discusses the Chicago economist who shredded the initial CBO claims. He still says that "the CBO works in mysterious ways, but its commentary and a footnote suggest that two National Bureau of Economic Research papers Mr. Mulligan published last August were "roughly" the most important drivers of this revision to its model. In short, the CBO has pulled this economist's arguments and analysis from the fringes to center of the health-care debate."
Mulligan still argues that CBO is off by about 600,000 jobs or so, but who's counting.

WSJ Article on Disincentives to work

 

[WebSpinner]

it may be a scientific wild-assed guess or just a theory on his part but what the country does not need at this time is something else to curb the economy and this most certainly does that no matter the number(s) one feels it will be. my concern is more from the standpoint of our debt, the ineptness our our govt and the quality of our healthcare going forward and feel all of that will be negative.