Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

WyomingCoog

CBO: 2.3 million jobs will be lost due to Obamacare

Recommended Posts

CSU AD Jack Graham - “If you get outside our borders, no one knows who we are. I was in Phoenix (last week) for the Mountain West meetings and there was a reception with all of the athletic directors. The bartender said to me, ‘Colorado State, where are you guys, Boulder?’ I’ve gotten that all my career. No one knows us outside our own boundaries."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the 1st paragraph says it all ..... More people will choose to work less, I think to say 2.3 million jobs would be "lost" isn't accurate. Obviously you will have some smaller companies that choose to have fewer full time employees but I think the article is trying to blame Obamacare for people electing to work less because of their new healthcare.

I can't sing and I can't dance but I can make romance - Macho Man Randy Savage

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the 1st paragraph says it all ..... More people will choose to work less, I think to say 2.3 million jobs would be "lost" isn't accurate. Obviously you will have some smaller companies that choose to have fewer full time employees but I think the article is trying to blame Obamacare for people electing to work less because of their new healthcare.

 

No you're right....CBS has always had a conservative agenda. I think they're definitely out to make Obama look bad. Dam Republican media. I'm glad you're able to find a way to spin 2.5 million fewer jobs into a positive. Carney? Is that you?

CSU AD Jack Graham - “If you get outside our borders, no one knows who we are. I was in Phoenix (last week) for the Mountain West meetings and there was a reception with all of the athletic directors. The bartender said to me, ‘Colorado State, where are you guys, Boulder?’ I’ve gotten that all my career. No one knows us outside our own boundaries."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No you're right....CBS has always had a conservative agenda. I think they're definitely out to make Obama look bad. Dam Republican media. I'm glad you're able to find a way to spin 2.5 million fewer jobs into a positive. Carney? Is that you?

 

I'm surprised you're putting so much faith into the CBO now, Coog.

Gannett_2.jpg.404db0bd7deb615b1ec5699694fae130.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised you're putting so much faith into the CBO now, Coog.

 

When have I bashed the CBO?

CSU AD Jack Graham - “If you get outside our borders, no one knows who we are. I was in Phoenix (last week) for the Mountain West meetings and there was a reception with all of the athletic directors. The bartender said to me, ‘Colorado State, where are you guys, Boulder?’ I’ve gotten that all my career. No one knows us outside our own boundaries."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When have I bashed the CBO?

 

Oh, I don't know of a specific occasion.  I just figured with your political leanings, the CBO would have no pull with you. 

 

Mostly just a silly comment!

Gannett_2.jpg.404db0bd7deb615b1ec5699694fae130.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to defend the law, because I'm not a fan, but it does say the workforce will decline and not that jobs will be lost.  And nobody should defend the CBO.  In fact there should be a logical fallacy called Appeal to CBO or some such. 

But it cranks out so much stuff you can use it to argue whatever and your source sounds kinda official!

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No you're right....CBS has always had a conservative agenda. I think they're definitely out to make Obama look bad. Dam Republican media. I'm glad you're able to find a way to spin 2.5 million fewer jobs into a positive. Carney? Is that you?

 

I'm only pointing out what the article stated in that the decline would be in large due to those choosing to work less or retire early because they now can.

I can't sing and I can't dance but I can make romance - Macho Man Randy Savage

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm only pointing out what the article stated in that the decline would be in large due to those choosing to work less or retire early because they now can.

 

Shifting costs from employers to the federal government.

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is on both sides. Our medical $ystem is full of corruption, and there are those that are too freakin' lazy to work. Cheaters on both sides! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to defend the law, because I'm not a fan, but it does say the workforce will decline and not that jobs will be lost.  And nobody should defend the CBO.  In fact there should be a logical fallacy called Appeal to CBO or some such. 

 

Yea, I want to know this... Are we talking about potential emplyees dropping out of the workforce, or jobs being lost?  The workforce one makes sense, because how many people will just stop looking for stable work now that they have government health care since benefits are often a huge incentive to get a real job? And if that's the case, then it's going to be reflected in unemployment by continuing to lower the numbers which the democrats will use to say the law is just dandy.

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it cranks out so much stuff you can use it to argue whatever and your source sounds kinda official!

 

And its non-partisan!  No slam on the good people there as they're only allowed to analyze a scenario within whatever narrow parameters and using whatever assumptions the requesting party gives them.  Garbage in, garbage out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea, I want to know this... Are we talking about potential emplyees dropping out of the workforce, or jobs being lost?  The workforce one makes sense, because how many people will just stop looking for stable work now that they have government health care since benefits are often a huge incentive to get a real job? And if that's the case, then it's going to be reflected in unemployment by continuing to lower the numbers which the democrats will use to say the law is just dandy.

If you skim the part where they talk about this (and I'm not encouraging anyone to do so, because it's dull as dirt) they do say there will probably be some job losses due to the law.  I didn't see them put a number to that anywhere. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea, I want to know this... Are we talking about potential emplyees dropping out of the workforce, or jobs being lost?  The workforce one makes sense, because how many people will just stop looking for stable work now that they have government health care since benefits are often a huge incentive to get a real job? And if that's the case, then it's going to be reflected in unemployment by continuing to lower the numbers which the democrats will use to say the law is just dandy.

My understanding is that the job "loss" will primarily come from people working less, not necessarily completely dropping out of the workforce. They will look to stay under the "4X poverty" level so as to maximize their subsidy. Begs the question, wouldn't this mean that there would be the equivalent of 2.3 million new job openings? Companies will have to cover at least some of the lost hours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding is that the job "loss" will primarily come from people working less, not necessarily completely dropping out of the workforce. They will look to stay under the "4X poverty" level so as to maximize their subsidy. Begs the question, wouldn't this mean that there would be the equivalent of 2.3 million new job openings? Companies will have to cover at least some of the lost hours.

 

Younger workers would rather pay the penalty than participate in either the employer's or exchange's insurance.

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the 1st paragraph says it all ..... More people will choose to work less, I think to say 2.3 million jobs would be "lost" isn't accurate. Obviously you will have some smaller companies that choose to have fewer full time employees but I think the article is trying to blame Obamacare for people electing to work less because of their new healthcare.

I'm not a guy who wants 70 year old people to have to work, but taking more people out of the taxpaying pool isn't a good thing. 

The Baby Boomers have saddled us with unsustainable debt and entitlements, and if 2.3 million people leave the workforce, then the rest of us have to make those entitlements up.

Image result for jim mcmahon with lavell edwardsImage result for byu logoImage result for byu boise state end zone hail maryc07489bb8bb7f5bad3672877f8b04f34.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...