Will Obamacare destroy jobs?

[imagep]

I've never heard either one of them either.

Surely you guys jest.

 

[imagep]

I'll make sure to let the editors of The Economist know you have figured it all out.:lamo:lamo:lamo

It's about time that someone does that.

Seriously, LoneLaugher's statement might sound over simplistic, but it is dead on correct. Job creation is the result of an increase in demand, with the one exception of increases in the public sector. And job loss is the result of decreases in demand, with the exception of government hiring/firing and loss of jobs due to improvements in technology.

 

[The Man]

Surely you guys jest.

Not at all. I've heard of them and I know who they are, but I've never heard either one's radio show.

 

[Jack Hays]

It's about time that someone does that.

Seriously, LoneLaugher's statement might sound over simplistic, but it is dead on correct. Job creation is the result of an increase in demand, with the one exception of increases in the public sector. And job loss is the result of decreases in demand, with the exception of government hiring/firing and loss of jobs due to improvements in technology.

But increased demand will not necessarily (or robustly) lead to increased employment (at least not full time/full benefits employment) if the cost of adding employees is too high.eace

 

[imagep]

Not at all. I've heard of them and I know who they are, but I've never heard either one's radio show.

You know, when someone tells me something like that, whether they are on the left or the right, I tend to assume that they are afraid to hear the other side. Kind of like a small child who deep in their heart knows that Santa Clause doesn't exist, but they want to believe so hard, that they shut out reality.

No personal attack intended - it's just the way I feel.

 

[imagep]

But increased demand will not necessarily (or robustly) lead to increased employment (at least not full time/full benefits employment) if the cost of adding employees is too high.eace

Possibly.

However when you look at countries with higher costs of employment that the US, they seem to do fine. I'm talking about Germany, Australia, and most scandinavian countries.

As a business manager, I really can't imagine a scenario when I would prefer to turn away customers, than to hire an extra hand, even if my cost of labor increase. companies make money by producing and selling goods and services. When they fail to meet demand, they are leaving money on the table, which is contrary to their goal of maximizing profits.

Think about it like this, the average productivity of the american worker can be roughly determined by dividing the GDP by the number of worker hours. That comes up to something in excess of $50/hr. Yet the median wage is less than half of that amount. So unless Obamacare pushes the average labor cost to over $50/hr, there will be few businesses that find it to be more profitable to reduce production or to shut down - and the loss of those employees will likely be far fewer than the gain of employment in the healthcare sector.

 

[The Man]

You know, when someone tells me something like that, whether they are on the left or the right, I tend to assume that they are afraid to hear the other side. Kind of like a small child who deep in their heart knows that Santa Clause doesn't exist, but they want to believe so hard, that they shut out reality.

No personal attack intended - it's just the way I feel.

I don't listen to radio of any kind. Nothing to do with being afraid to hear their views. For stereo, it's strictly music for me, either a cd or my ipod.

 

[Jack Hays]

Possibly.

However when you look at countries with higher costs of employment that the US, they seem to do fine. I'm talking about Germany, Australia, and most scandinavian countries.

As a business manager, I really can't imagine a scenario when I would prefer to turn away customers, than to hire an extra hand, even if my cost of labor increase. companies make money by producing and selling goods and services. When they fail to meet demand, they are leaving money on the table, which is contrary to their goal of maximizing profits.

Think about it like this, the average productivity of the american worker can be roughly determined by dividing the GDP by the number of worker hours. That comes up to something in excess of $50/hr. Yet the median wage is less than half of that amount. So unless Obamacare pushes the average labor cost to over $50/hr, there will be few businesses that find it to be more profitable to reduce production or to shut down - and the loss of those employees will likely be far fewer than the gain of employment in the healthcare sector.

But if the per employee cost is too high then overtime and part timers might be more attractive than full time employees, at least for a while. The high labor cost countries you cite all have health care independent of employers/employment.eace

 

[imagep]

But if the per employee cost is too high then overtime and part timers might be more attractive than full time employees, at least for a while. The high labor cost countries you cite all have health care independent of employers/employment.eace

You do have a legit point that I didn't consider. thanks for pointing that out.

hey, I'm with you that heathcare should be independent of employers. I don't support Obamacare, nor do I support socialized medicine. I'm a huge supporter of what I call "first payer" healthcare, where everyone just pays for their own dang healthcare.

Regardless, I seeing how only 2% of employers who will be required to either pay the tax/fine or provide insurance don't already provide insurance, I really can't see that this fairly small increase in the cost of labor is going to significantly reduce job growth. If you are correct about employers hiring more part timers, that might actually be a good thing, because it will result in what is basically "job sharing", where maybe instead of two workers working 40 hours each, they will have three workers working 27 hours each. This would result in a lower unemployment rate, and once that rate drops below the rate of full employment (around 5% unemployment), then wages should start increasing, resulting in more aggregate demand, more jobs, more production, and more wealth creation.

What we have now is two many people riding in the cart and not enough people pulling the cart.

 

[Jack Hays]

You do have a legit point that I didn't consider. thanks for pointing that out.

hey, I'm with you that heathcare should be independent of employers. I don't support Obamacare, nor do I support socialized medicine. I'm a huge supporter of what I call "first payer" healthcare, where everyone just pays for their own dang healthcare.

Regardless, I seeing how only 2% of employers who will be required to either pay the tax/fine or provide insurance don't already provide insurance, I really can't see that this fairly small increase in the cost of labor is going to significantly reduce job growth. If you are correct about employers hiring more part timers, that might actually be a good thing, because it will result in what is basically "job sharing", where maybe instead of two workers working 40 hours each, they will have three workers working 27 hours each. This would result in a lower unemployment rate, and once that rate drops below the rate of full employment (around 5% unemployment), then wages should start increasing, resulting in more aggregate demand, more jobs, more production, and more wealth creation.

What we have now is two many people riding in the cart and not enough people pulling the cart.

Problem for part timers is that they really need full time work to support themselves/their families. Plus, part time doesn't get health care.eace

 

[imagep]

Problem for part timers is that they really need full time work to support themselves/their families. Plus, part time doesn't get health care.eace

Sure. I don't know so much that they need to work more hours, but they certainly need a full time income. I suspect that soon the 29 hour workweek may be the new standard "full time". As long as we are just as productive in aggregate, with more people working 25 hours a week, our standard of living shouldn't decline.

And yes, this would basically make the employer insurance mandate a moot subject. That might be a good thing.

 

[windowdressing]

Problem for part timers is that they really need full time work to support themselves/their families. Plus, part time doesn't get health care.eace

once the whole thing kicks in, we'll probably get an answer to your question ... one of the reasons that I think that on balance a fully implemented ACA will be much more positive than negative, is the GOP's fanatical attempts to stop it -- that leads me to believe that they've done the research and they know it will ultimately be well received and Dems running for office will not hesitate to remind people how the GOP tried to kill it ...

 

[imagep]

I don't listen to radio of any kind. Nothing to do with being afraid to hear their views. For stereo, it's strictly music for me, either a cd or my ipod.

do you watch TV (news) or read the papers or internet news?

I have to assume that you do have some source of obtaining news, facts, and learning about current events or else you wouldn't even bother to participate on this forum.

Hannity does have a TV show also, ya know.

 

[The Man]

do you watch TV (news) or read the papers or internet news?

I have to assume that you do have some source of obtaining news, facts, and learning about current events or else you wouldn't even bother to participate on this forum.

Hannity does have a TV show also, ya know.

Yes I watch TV, but only sports and The Walking Dead. I don't watch Fox News or any other news channel, I get my news from the internet and newspapers. Reading it on your own is a superior way to take in news, IMO.

 

[Rocketman]

As a young child, she developed diabetes. Her condition is genetic; therefore, no one is pointing a finger at you.
Contracting the disease was not her choice, and unfortunately the local factory was not hiring seven-year-olds, otherwise, I'm sure her step-father would have put her to work.
Since the beginning of time there has been an imbalance in prosperity, and for some people, it's very difficult to climb out of poverty, but thanks to a world filled with compassionate, caring people, they stand a better chance.

While dragging down the working class to poverty, how is that a win?

 

[imagep]

once the whole thing kicks in, we'll probably get an answer to your question ... one of the reasons that I think that on balance a fully implemented ACA will be much more positive than negative, is the GOP's fanatical attempts to stop it -- that leads me to believe that they've done the research and they know it will ultimately be well received and Dems running for office will not hesitate to remind people how the GOP tried to kill it ...

Thats some really whacked out theory, but just crazy enough that it might be true.

The best chance for republicans to get elected in the next few elections is if our economy gets worse from here. As painfully slow as our growth has been since the end of the recession, we have had some growth, and we certainly weren't seeing that towards the end of the last Bush term. Undoubtably, democrats will talk up the 93 straight months of economic growth and 89 straight months of job growth (by the time the next presidential election nears), pointing out that it is one of the longest uninterrupted spans of economic growth in US history (I believe second only to maybe Bill Clintons years).

thats the last thing that republicans want. They can only win the election if there is a major Obama scandal or another recession. The general public so far hasn't really showed a lot of interest in Obama scandals, so it's back to the economy.


Republicans are trying to create a new scandal, this time a war scandal. they (rightfully) prodded the president to commit to military action against Syria, saying that since the prez drew this "red line" that Syria must not cross, that he must back up his words. Now they are pointing out (again, rightfully) how it would not be in our best interest to attack Syria. If Obama doesn't handle this very skillfully, this could be that scandal that prevents any dem from being elected to POTUS. Looks to me that Obama is going to outwit this strategy also, by putting the decision back onto congress.

If dems can kill Obamacare, they can claim that they "saved" our economy from another recession, and thus this is currently their best hope of saving face before the next major election. If they fail to kill Obamacare, and if we fail to fall into another recession, then they are pretty much politically doomed until the end of Hillary's first term, at which time, it's fairly likely that we will experience another cyclical recession, and the Republicans can take the Whitehouse again, blaming the new recession on Obama and Hillary.

I'm just calling things they way I see them.

 

[sangha]

Please provide evidence that either ever made such a claim.

Please provide evidence that you have an opinion on the issue you started this thread about