DescentBB

Democrats went out in force this weekend claiming that the 2.4 million jobs that will be lost due to Obama care (according to the CBO) is a good thing because it frees people from being stuck in jobs they weren't happy with..

those guys must have LOVED the great depression.

here's a bit of advise for those stuck in a job you dont like....QUIT.

the spin machine is working overtime on this CBO report

anyone who took the time to read the report will learn these things:
1.the 'job loss' isn't a loss of jobs. It is a loss of labor from the workforce.
2. there is nothing that diminishes the DEMAND for labor
3. the losses projected are all VOLUNTARY
4. the losses are mainly due to people who, with health insurance available NOT tied to employment, don't feel the need to work( I am a perfect example....the only reason I worked past the age of 53 or so was so my wife could get health coverage, as she would have been denied on the
open market).


The only people out there stupid enough to spin this report into the term 'job losses' are ideologically driven right wingers, desperate for something bad to pin to the bill, as it(albeit slowly) does what it was designed to do.

Actually, and the CBO report hints at this, the upside of 2.3 million full-time equivalents coming out of the workforce is twofold. More opportunities for younger, less experienced people to enter the workforce(along with an overall upward mobility, as those that leave are often upper tier experienced workers) AND an overall rise in pay for everyone who is working, since demand isn't lowered at all(the report notes this fact), and pay is just a reflection of supply and demand in most cases.

Now,CUDA, who is spinning what, again? And this report has been out for 11 days, it is not a weekend phenomenon.

CUDA wrote:Democrats went out in force this weekend claiming that the 2.4 million jobs that will be lost due to Obama care (according to the CBO) is a good thing because it frees people from being stuck in jobs they weren't happy with..

now, since you like to attribute such to me, CUDA, I'll ask you:
Why are you posting what is an obvious LIE, and partisan BS on this board?The CBO report says utterly nothing about jobs being lost. It speaks of labor coming out of the workforce, as I noted above. So, you, who I presume can read English well enough, chose to lie about a public document.
Why?

Sure lets look at the bright side instead…

2.4 million more people getting subsidies.

And it will help further doctor those un-employment numbers.

Yay! Rejoice!

Spidey wrote:Sure lets look at the bright side instead…

2.4 million people dropping out of the tax base.

2.4 million more people getting subsidies.

And it will help further doctor those un-employment numbers.

Yay! Rejoice!

if those 2.3 million people are replaced by people currently under-employed, or unemployed(as would be expected, if job demand remains steady,as the report indicates), there is NO harm done to the tax base whatsoever. All that report states is the number of folks expected to leave the workforce, and for those people that is a good thing. It is also a great thing for those who wish to enter the workforce. So, you have less in the way of 60-somethings working to keep insurance until Medicare, and more young people or middle aged out-of-work people taking their place. Rejoice may be an overstatement, but a bit of economic freedom for a few million people is nothing to sneeze at, either. Oh, and higher wages, which should be seen as well by these numbers, will BOOST the tax base.

Well done on the solid rebuttal, slick.

Here's the report.

http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbof ... ok2014.pdf

thanks, Duper....I was going to post that, but figured that the people who would NEED to read it wouldn't.

vision wrote:Well done on the solid rebuttal, slick.

thanks....I am so sick of people using made-up 'facts'(ie-job loss claims from a report that doesn't mention loss of jobs) to bolster their arguments.

5 minute rule, yea, that’s why I changed my post.

Wages aren’t going to be affected, because it’s not enough of a number to shift the dynamic to an employees market. (still way too many un-employed)

Also the affect of replacing older workers with younger workers ALWAYS results in lower wages.

And as time goes on…there will be affects on SS and Medicare as well. (as in fewer workers per retiree)

It’s a mixed bag I will admit, but if you only promote one side…I have to call it out.

Spidey wrote: Wages aren’t going to be affected, because it’s not enough of a number to shift the dynamic to an employees market. (still way too many un-employed)

maybe correct.

Also the affect of replacing older workers with younger workers ALWAYS results in lower wages.

but, if the starting wage goes up a bit, still a positive. We're back to your first point above, then.

And as time goes on…there will be affects on SS and Medicare as well. (as in fewer workers per retiree)

actually, the demographic trends show that such an effect would be VERY short term. Even less so, if we ever get real immigration reform.

It’s a mixed bag I will admit, but if you only promote one side…I have to call it out.

you might wish to speak with CUDA, then.......I note he did a post-and-run on this topic,after presenting not only ONE side, but a side based entirely upon a blatant lie.

And, I was going to let him take his lumps, until you started to paint a rosy picture…..

Spidey wrote:And, I was going to let him take his lumps, until you started to paint a rosy picture…..

I wouldn't say my picture is in ANY way unrealistic. It is merely what the CBO study suggests. And, for those of you willing to slog through the 287 or so pages in that study, they are VERY clear that they have confidence in the part of the report that looks at the 2014-2016 time frame, and are very unsure of the accuracy of any projection to ten years(the part that contains the 2.3 million full-time equivalent loss).

callmeslick wrote:

vision wrote:Well done on the solid rebuttal, slick.

thanks....I am so sick of people using made-up 'facts'(ie-job loss claims from a report that doesn't mention loss of jobs) to bolster their arguments.

That's two-thirds of the reason why I don't come here much.

callmeslick wrote:thanks, Duper....I was going to post that, but figured that the people who would NEED to read it wouldn't.

Well, truth be told, I doubt that I will read it either. It's a 170 pages long.

I've got bigger things on my platter at the moment than reading about our government's incompetencies.

the copy I read was over 200 pages....and, yes, I did slog through it. Then again, I'm retired and have time on my hands given the recent weather.