3 ms·

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 absol

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.

rtpg 13y ago
considering that one of the measures of production (and GDP) is salaries, your argument is a bit iffy (salaries could rise proportionately due to the labor shortage, thus increasing GDP anyways, but that goes to show the uselessness of GDP in measuring "real" production). One argument for better healthcare is people end up less sick. These guys(http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2012/09/12/u-s-workforce-illness-costs-576b-annually-from-sick-days-to-workers-compensation/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2012/09/12/u-s-workf...) seem to think that productivity decreases in the US account for almost 10% of spending on salaries and whatnot. There are 120 million or so people in the workforce, so 2 million jobs is something like 1%. So if we make people "10%" more health , it would end up with us saving the same 1% (thus on the long-term allowing more investment later). We could get people to do the same amount of work for less, thus we are more productive. I do not vouch for the validity of the numbers, just for the idea behind it (healthier people means more productive people).
- hga 13y ago
  "One argument for better healthcare is people end up less sick." Indeed. Unfortunately, it is entirely unproven that Obamacare, which focuses on health insurance, is going to result in better health care. For reasons we can go into if you want, Obamacare compliant polices tend to have extremely narrow networks of doctors and hospitals. E.g. look at all the fuss the Seattle Children's Hospital is raising, and there's a lot of individual cases where people are losing their doctors who've been treating their conditions for a long time, this is just the latest report to pop up: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-obamacare-patients-20140205,0,5417742.story#axzz2sPjqUBV0 http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-obamacare-patients-201... There's a reason Reagan got a lot of mileage with his joke "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.'"
  - CWuestefeld 13y ago
    Obamacare compliant polices tend to have extremely narrow networks of doctors and hospitals This is a good point. The narrower networks can, I think, be expected to result in more time off work. I'll have to drive a farther distance to see my doctor, or I'll have to settle for an appointment in the middle of the day. Either way, it's a hit to my time that wouldn't exist under "traditional" schemes. it is entirely unproven that Obamacare, which focuses on health insurance, is going to result in better health care. So the fact that you're insured doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to get better faster. The doctor can't do anything for you if you've got a cold or the flu; you've just got to ride it out. I suspect that it's cases like this that make up the lion's share of health-related lost productivity. And even when healthcare can have an impact on your health, I don't believe that the positive effects on worker productivity could be that great. Most employers already provide healthcare insurance, so there's no improvement to the situation there. The only positive effect will be toward those who are already employed but without health insurance, which is a minority.

rtpg 13y ago

considering that one of the measures of production (and GDP) is salaries, your argument is a bit iffy (salaries could rise proportionately due to the labor shortage, thus increasing GDP anyways, but that goes to show the uselessness of GDP in measuring "real" production). One argument for better healthcare is people end up less sick. These guys(http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2012/09/12/u-s-workforce-illness-costs-576b-annually-from-sick-days-to-workers-compensation/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2012/09/12/u-s-workf...) seem to think that productivity decreases in the US account for almost 10% of spending on salaries and whatnot. There are 120 million or so people in the workforce, so 2 million jobs is something like 1%. So if we make people "10%" more health , it would end up with us saving the same 1% (thus on the long-term allowing more investment later). We could get people to do the same amount of work for less, thus we are more productive. I do not vouch for the validity of the numbers, just for the idea behind it (healthier people means more productive people).

hga 13y ago
"One argument for better healthcare is people end up less sick." Indeed. Unfortunately, it is entirely unproven that Obamacare, which focuses on health insurance, is going to result in better health care. For reasons we can go into if you want, Obamacare compliant polices tend to have extremely narrow networks of doctors and hospitals. E.g. look at all the fuss the Seattle Children's Hospital is raising, and there's a lot of individual cases where people are losing their doctors who've been treating their conditions for a long time, this is just the latest report to pop up: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-obamacare-patients-20140205,0,5417742.story#axzz2sPjqUBV0 http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-obamacare-patients-201... There's a reason Reagan got a lot of mileage with his joke "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.'"
- CWuestefeld 13y ago
  Obamacare compliant polices tend to have extremely narrow networks of doctors and hospitals This is a good point. The narrower networks can, I think, be expected to result in more time off work. I'll have to drive a farther distance to see my doctor, or I'll have to settle for an appointment in the middle of the day. Either way, it's a hit to my time that wouldn't exist under "traditional" schemes. it is entirely unproven that Obamacare, which focuses on health insurance, is going to result in better health care. So the fact that you're insured doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to get better faster. The doctor can't do anything for you if you've got a cold or the flu; you've just got to ride it out. I suspect that it's cases like this that make up the lion's share of health-related lost productivity. And even when healthcare can have an impact on your health, I don't believe that the positive effects on worker productivity could be that great. Most employers already provide healthcare insurance, so there's no improvement to the situation there. The only positive effect will be toward those who are already employed but without health insurance, which is a minority.