2014***ObamaCare***2014

If the CBO is correct, the supply of labor will decrease, but the demand for labor will stay the same. That should increase wages, a very good thing, and a welcome change from years of stagnant wages.

Oh, and to put the lie to the inevitable Koch Brothers ads coming this fall . . . .

Why is it when I claim that's what will happen if we stop employing illegal workers, that some insist there's no proof for that?

Oh and was Obamacare part of a new grand strategy to improve our standard of living by providing disincentives to work?

In some cases, yes.

Someone with health issues in their fifties or early sixties may now choose to retire on their savings, rather than keep a job primarily for the health insurance benefits.

Someone who wants to work part time, because of family or other obligations, may now be able to do so. Or become a stay-at-home mom (or dad), knowingly taking a hit in their income, but without risking their family's health.

Someone who chooses to become an entrepreneur may now do so, risking their capital and their livelihood, but without risking the health of their family by losing employer based health insurance. Ditto someone who wants to take a chance working for a small start-up that doesn't offer health benefits.

And an employer who engages in abuse, or wage theft, or simply offers inadequate pay, will have have a tougher time finding and keeping employees in a labor market that shrinks by 2%, and where prospective employees can buy their own affordable health insurance. You know all those middle class white collar workers who are expected to monitor and respond to emails at night, on weekends, and during vacations? Maybe they'll finally start getting paid for it.

I see all of the above as a good thing.

Neither the CBO nor DonDiego claimed a loss of 2-million jobs.

The Washington Post Fact Checker confirms exactly what poor old DonDiego reported - a loss of 2-million full-time-worker-equivalent-manhours to the labor market.

"One big issue are the health insurance subsidies in the law. That’s a substantial benefit that decreases as people earn more money, so at a certain point, a person has to choose between earning more money or getting less help with health insurance payments. In other words, they might work longer and harder, but actually earn no more, or earn even less, money. That is a disincentive to work. (The same thing happens when people qualify for food stamps or other social services.)

Thus, someone might decide to work part-time, not full time, in order to keep getting health care subsidies. Thus, they are reducing their supply of labor to the market.

Finally, we should note that the figures (2 million, etc.) are shorthand for full-time equivalent workers—a combination of two conclusions: fewer people looking for work and some people choosing to work fewer hours. The CBO added those two things and produced a hard number, but it actually does not mean 2 million fewer workers."

Obamacare will cause a reduction in the labor force equivalent to 2-million full-time jobs; it might be 4-million folks working half-time; it might be 3-million folks working 27 hours/week. Most likely it won't be an even-million.
When the Government distributes benefits, recipients generally figure out pretty quickly how to game the system to maximize the benefit[in dollars]-to-cost[in labor]-ratio for themselves. That's all this is.

And just suppose for the moment that the report had actually said that "New CBO estimates show that Obmacare will have no impact on full time worker equivalent by 2021...eliminating their original 800,000 estimate based on extensive studies"

I imagine Chilcoot would then be decrying the negative impact the lack of worker hour reduction would have on the labor supply and complaining that more workers means lower wages.

Forkush on the other hand, would be putting up the warning light describing how fewer workers leaving the workforce impacts their personal flexibility and ability to become 'entrepreneurs' and 'stay-at-home moms' or 'retire early'.

Or would they then be pointing to the new estimates as 'employment neutral' and a positive for the labor force? I wonder. Oh well, I guess we all look for the 'Silver Lining' sometimes.

Remember when pelosi said obamacare would create 4 million jobs

I really can't figure out what you are trying to say. That's not snark or sarcasm; I read it twice.

You can say the same for a 10,000 page book of tax breaks. Just Ask Mitt Romney. But here's the differentce...if the the distribution in question makes for a better quality of life and more freedom...while also being deficit neutral or better....then I fail to see what the problem is.

And that second point was reaffirmed by the CBO in their analysis. Their forecast for the "risk corridors" (or as Don Diego referred to them in an earlier post "insurance bailout") is going to be a net positive for tax payers. But if history is any guide I suspect some of our posters will pick and choose data from the CBO as it fits their ideology. Its like a salad bar of absolute truths and nefarious lies !

So do businesses. And so do tax payers - especially wealthy ones. And for that matter, so do casino customers, who adjust their behavior based on changes in comps, pay tables, resort fees, and so on.

DonDiego has made a remarkable discovery - that human behavior changes when incentives change. I think DonDiego should start a new academic discipline! I suggest he call it "Economics."

There was an original CBO report that predicted an 800,000 worker reduction due to disincentives. The new report bumps that to 2.3 million which you and chilcoot are indicating is a good thing. I was speculating as to what your opinion would be if the new report showed that there would be no worker reduction due to disincentives. Would you then be upset with the new healthcare law or would you embrace it as employment neutral? It's all about the spin.