6 ms·

This title will be read by people and a lot will interpret it as 'less jobs'. But the exact opposite will happen: Some people will work less, so more people wil

by rtpg 13y ago

This title will be read by people and a lot will interpret it as 'less jobs'. But the exact opposite will happen: Some people will work less, so more people will need to be hired. Plus wages will have to go up to account for the shortage. In a way, the ACA is creating jobs. Or at the very least, it'll increase wages. That's a selling point. EDIT: I thought I wrote the "increasing jobs" in a "wouldn't it be funny if this were true" sort of sense, guess I didn't. As for the wage increase, Business insider seems to think so at least (http://www.businessinsider.com/the-buried-lede-in-the-cbo-report-obamacare-will-raise-wages-2014-2 http://www.businessinsider.com/the-buried-lede-in-the-cbo-re...).

Fuxy 13y ago
I thought that was the case. They phrased it so badly i actually quit reading it in the middle because it was giving me a headache. Loss of working hours for businesses does not mean loss of jobs it means finally people can work decent hours and employers can't take advantage of them as easily.
- angrybits 13y ago
  Not everyone is salary. Hourly people tend to want all of the hours they can get, since it results in more income.
  - Already__Taken 13y ago
    Hourly people want more income not more hours, People don't want 12 hour shifts and they shouldn't have to do it to earn a living wage. A company needs to pay what that costs or their not worth being a company.
    - CWuestefeld 13y ago
      A company needs to pay what that costs This is unclear to me. The company needs to pay what what costs? As far as I can see, they are indeed paying hourly workers for the hours that are worked, so this can't be what you're referring to. What is the cost that they're not paying?
      - rtpg 13y ago
        he might be referring to the fact that a lot of large retail outfits or fast food outfits basically pay such low wages that employees have to apply for things like food stamps (meaning the gov't is effectively subsidizing these jobs for the companies).
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    People who will continue to want to work more are, ipso facto, not part of the voluntary reduction in labor force participation projected in the CBO study. In fact, that reduction would reduce the number of people competing for those hours, making it more likely that those who want them will get them.
yummyfajitas 13y ago
Your interpretation of the article is not supported by the body. If the CBO believed in the effect you postulate, they would not predict fewer jobs (more precisely, reduced effort equivalent to fewer jobs). According to the body, hours worked and full time employment will drop. This is a straightforward supply shock, along the same lines as the oil shortage of the 70's (assuming of course you believe in reducing the entire economy to 2 graphs, as the Keynesians often do). Also, increasing wages in a recession is a big no-no if you believe in Keynesian economics. Assuming this effect is not taken into account by the CBO's headline number, it means there will be further job losses.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > If the CBO believed in the effect you postulate, they would not predict fewer jobs. They're predicting a smaller labor force (non-institutionalized population of working age working or actively seeking work) resulting from the reduced health insecurity from the ACA, not fewer jobs. [1] To see where that fits into the unemployment picture, understand that the unemployment rate is (1 - (Filled Jobs / Labor Force)). > Also, increasing wages in a recession is a big no-no if you believe in Keynesian economics We're not in a recession. We're in an expansion in which both wages and employment rates have recovered slower than normal -- which was also true in the last expansion between the 2001 recession and the Great Recession -- which is why it feels like we've been in a 13 year recession to many people who aren't major capitalists, though there have only been 26 months of official recession in that period. [1] The ACA effect is described on p. 14 of the report [2], which is linked from the NYTimes article, in the section under the heading "Labor Force Participation" (heading on p. 13). [2] https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45011-LaborMarketReview.pdf https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments...
  - CWuestefeld 13y ago
    I think you're missing the point about changes to the labor market. The unemployment rate you cite is correct, but it's just as you said - a rate, not an absolute total. What the report states is that the total number of jobs will decrease. Together with the fact that we know that hours per job is not going to increase (and may actually be decreasing, thanks to other PPACA regulations), simple algebra tells us that there will be fewer hours worked overall. Barring an external development that causes productivity per hour to increase, we can expect lower total production. Bottom line, then, is lower GDP as a result of this. That is the opposite of a good thing for the economy.

by rtpg 13y ago

Fuxy 13y ago

I thought that was the case. They phrased it so badly i actually quit reading it in the middle because it was giving me a headache. Loss of working hours for businesses does not mean loss of jobs it means finally people can work decent hours and employers can't take advantage of them as easily.

angrybits 13y ago
Not everyone is salary. Hourly people tend to want all of the hours they can get, since it results in more income.
- Already__Taken 13y ago
  Hourly people want more income not more hours, People don't want 12 hour shifts and they shouldn't have to do it to earn a living wage. A company needs to pay what that costs or their not worth being a company.
  - CWuestefeld 13y ago
    A company needs to pay what that costs This is unclear to me. The company needs to pay what what costs? As far as I can see, they are indeed paying hourly workers for the hours that are worked, so this can't be what you're referring to. What is the cost that they're not paying?
    - rtpg 13y ago
      he might be referring to the fact that a lot of large retail outfits or fast food outfits basically pay such low wages that employees have to apply for things like food stamps (meaning the gov't is effectively subsidizing these jobs for the companies).
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  People who will continue to want to work more are, ipso facto, not part of the voluntary reduction in labor force participation projected in the CBO study. In fact, that reduction would reduce the number of people competing for those hours, making it more likely that those who want them will get them.

yummyfajitas 13y ago

Your interpretation of the article is not supported by the body. If the CBO believed in the effect you postulate, they would not predict fewer jobs (more precisely, reduced effort equivalent to fewer jobs). According to the body, hours worked and full time employment will drop. This is a straightforward supply shock, along the same lines as the oil shortage of the 70's (assuming of course you believe in reducing the entire economy to 2 graphs, as the Keynesians often do). Also, increasing wages in a recession is a big no-no if you believe in Keynesian economics. Assuming this effect is not taken into account by the CBO's headline number, it means there will be further job losses.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> If the CBO believed in the effect you postulate, they would not predict fewer jobs. They're predicting a smaller labor force (non-institutionalized population of working age working or actively seeking work) resulting from the reduced health insecurity from the ACA, not fewer jobs. [1] To see where that fits into the unemployment picture, understand that the unemployment rate is (1 - (Filled Jobs / Labor Force)). > Also, increasing wages in a recession is a big no-no if you believe in Keynesian economics We're not in a recession. We're in an expansion in which both wages and employment rates have recovered slower than normal -- which was also true in the last expansion between the 2001 recession and the Great Recession -- which is why it feels like we've been in a 13 year recession to many people who aren't major capitalists, though there have only been 26 months of official recession in that period. [1] The ACA effect is described on p. 14 of the report [2], which is linked from the NYTimes article, in the section under the heading "Labor Force Participation" (heading on p. 13). [2] https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45011-LaborMarketReview.pdf https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments...
- CWuestefeld 13y ago
  I think you're missing the point about changes to the labor market. The unemployment rate you cite is correct, but it's just as you said - a rate, not an absolute total. What the report states is that the total number of jobs will decrease. Together with the fact that we know that hours per job is not going to increase (and may actually be decreasing, thanks to other PPACA regulations), simple algebra tells us that there will be fewer hours worked overall. Barring an external development that causes productivity per hour to increase, we can expect lower total production. Bottom line, then, is lower GDP as a result of this. That is the opposite of a good thing for the economy.