"Job loss" is the CBO's wording? Oh, reaalllllly? Maybe you can find where those words are used by the CBO; I couldn't:
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45010-Outlook2014.pdf http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45010-Outlook2014.pdf It appears the CBO's wording is "labor participation rate." As I said, the jobs aren't going away; if someone quits, someone else will take their place. Lots of folks looking for work these days, in case you hadn't heard. As to "families will have more time together since some will be working less,whether they can afford it or not," in fact most will be able to afford working less, or not working at all, because of ACA, if they're now working, or working more than they'd like, just to keep their health insurance. Yes, there are various tradeoffs with ACA, no question about it. But it will be quite awhile until we know whether the positives outweigh the negatives. Given the previous ghastly mess, seems to me it's well worth a try. BTW, from the CBO report: CBO anticipates that the unemployment rate will remain high for the next few years. If changes in incentives lead some workers to reduce the amount of hours they want to work or to leave the labor force altogether, many unemployed workers will be available to take those jobs—so the effect on overall employment of reductions in labor supply will be greatly dampened. The expanded federal subsidies for health insurance will stimulate demand for goods and services, and that effect will mostly occur over the next few years. That increase in demand will induce some employers to hire more workers or to increase their employees’ hours during that period. http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45010-Outlook2014.pdf http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45010-Outlook2014.pdf (The phrase "job loss" does not appear in the full report either. Hate to tell you this, but the phrase is a right-wing misconstruction--a rather desperate one, IMHO--of the CBO report that's deliberately designed to mislead.) Judy, you'll have to ask the Congressional Budget Office how they calculate *job Loss*, it's their wording. Perhaps a full time job , 40 hours a week, being cut to less than 30, is considered a lost job, from full time to part time. Also, businesses paring back so as to avoid regulation could be considered job loss. Example, a business has 60 full time employees. So they take 12 jobs and create 24 part time jobs to avoid the penalty, keeping them at 48 full time jobs and 24 part time jobs under 30 hrs. a week. Technically, that business wouldn't have to provide insurance for anybody at that point and could do so to be competitive or even under- cut a larger business that can't do that.However, my original point was two fold, there will be jobs lost and the spin is that it's not so bad because families will have more time together since some will be working less,whether they can afford it or not. Not the sign of a robust economy. On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 6:33 AM, "authfriend@..." <authfriend@...> wrote: Mike, there isn't going to be any "job loss." If someone quits their job, the job doesn't go away, It'll just go to somebody else. I wouldn't count on employers hiring many more people with the uncertainty of the ACA. The CBO has estimated about 2.5 million job loss and will probably leave an estimated 31 million uninsured. A new 29-30 hr work week.This, being tauted as the new, desirable normal. Single mothers will *finally* be able to quit a job without fear of losing their healthcare for their children, more people being *freed* of those undesirable jobs and able to stay home and cook meals at home and raise their children. Ah yes, they'll have government subsidized healthcare but no jobs, More welfare state, more debt, more borrowing, more *quantitative easing*, more government dependency, more regulation, less freedom. I didn't like the TM movement because somebody was always telling me what I *should or shouldn't do*. Now the federal government is becoming the same way, LOL! BTW I don't see the economy getting any better otherwise why would a political party that created this mess be screaming about *income inequality*? On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 5:15 PM, "jr_esq@..." <jr_esq@...> wrote: Mike, The increase of jobs is also dependent on the Federal Reserve Board's Quantitative Easing (QE) policy. If the interest rates remain low, there's a good chance that the employers will borrow more money to increase their sales. As such, they also will hire more people to provide services to their customers. If the economy gets better, the Fed should reduce its purchases of government bonds to prevent the rise of inflation. So far, the balancing act appears to be working.
