Time for a mea culpa.
In the past, I’ve criticized Obamacare for a variety of reasons.
- I’ve argued that it’s a fiscal boondoggle.
- I’ve pointed out that it’s grossly inconsistent with the Constitution.
- I’ve complained that it’s undermined the rule of law.
- And it undermined growth by increasing marginal tax rates.
- Moreover, I’ve explained how it exacerbates the real problem in our healthcare system, which is government-caused third-party payer.
But I’m not here to apologize for those views.
Instead, I feel obliged to issue somewhat of a retraction for my assertion that Obama care is a job killer.
Some of you may be scratching your heads, particularly if you read these passages from an article earlier this week in The Hill.
ObamaCare will force a reduction in American work hours — the equivalent of 2 million jobs over the next decade, Congress’s nonpartisan scorekeeper said Monday. The total workforce will shrink by just under 1 percent as a result of changes in worker participation because of the new coverage expansions, mandates and changes in tax rates, according to a 22-page report released by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). …the law changes incentives over the years for the workers themselves both in part-time and full-time positions.
And if you go to the actual CBO report, you’ll see that the story is accurate. And the CBO report is very consistent with some of the academic research on the issue.
So why, then, am I issuing a mea culpa on Obamacare and jobs?
Well, some readers may have concluded from my writings that Obamacare is an absolute job killer.
Yet, as we see from this story in the Kansas City Star, there may be some jobs being created because of the so-called Affordable Care Act. Here are some relevant excerpts.
H&R Block expects more customers to feel the impact of the Affordable Care Act when they do their taxes early next year, providing a source of growth for the Kansas City-based business. A year ago, Block invested in marketing and training its tax preparers… “We think we’re going to start to reap the benefits of that investment,” Block chief executive Bill Cobb said Tuesday during a strategy session with analysts. …the company said an early effort will be aimed at getting back customers the company lost last year.
To be sure, H&R Block isn’t explicitly saying that it will have additional employees, but I think we can infer that some new positions will be created as the company takes advantage of the fact that many taxpayers will be overwhelmed by the complexities and penalties that are part of Obamacare.
With this in mind, I’m going to be very careful in the future to state that the President’s law is a net job killer or a relative job killer.
After all, I wouldn’t want anyone to accuse me of being unfairly or inaccurately critical of government-run healthcare. Even in cases when the jobs being created are evidence of bad legislation rather than a good economic climate.
P.S. I’m not a big fan of H&R Block. Assuming they didn’t support Obamacare, I don’t blame them for enjoying the extra profits they’ll earn because of the law. But the company has supported government rules to block competition in the tax-compliance industry. And I remember many years ago being part of a debate in Louisiana where a representative from H&R Block argued against the flat tax. Gee, I wonder why?
[…] imagine what we would discover about health outcomes if various Obamacare costs (job losses, tax increases, lower income, etc) were added to the […]
[…] Chuck also shows how government involvement has created the same unhealthy dynamic in other areas, writing about college costs, Social Security, and Obamacare. […]
[…] Back in 2015, I basically applauded the Congressional Budget Office for its analysis of what would happen if Obamacare was repealed. The agency’s number crunchers didn’t get it exactly right, but they actually took important steps and produced numbers showing how the law was hurting taxpayers and the economy. […]
[…] Back in 2015, I basically applauded the Congressional Budget Office for its analysis of what would happen if Obamacare was repealed. The agency’s number crunchers didn’t get it exactly right, but they actually took important steps and produced numbers showing how the law was hurting taxpayers and the economy. […]
[…] Chuck also shows how government involvement has created the same unhealthy dynamic in other areas, writing about college costs, Social Security, and Obamacare. […]
[…] participation. This is why policies that sometime sound nice (unemployment benefits, food stamps, health subsidies, etc) actually are very […]
[…] participation. This is why policies that sometime sound nice (unemployment benefits,food stamps, health subsidies, etc) actually are very […]
[…] participation. This is why policies that sometime sound nice (unemployment benefits, food stamps, health subsidies, etc) actually are very […]
[…] participation. This is why policies that sometime sound nice (unemployment benefits, food stamps, health subsidies, etc) actually are very […]
[…] are being lured out of the labor force by food stamps, disability payments, unemployment insurance, Obamacare, or any of the many other redistribution programs in […]
[…] Actually, there’s another group, so we can say there are two winners from government-run […]
[…] Actually, there’s another group, so we can say there are two winners from government-run […]
[…] maybe she’s even familiar with the research, from both private scholars and the Congressional Budget Office, on Obamacare having a negative impact on […]
as of late I have been giving the war issue some thought… at the moment we are engaged in the war on drugs… [pushing 50 years] the war on terror… the war in Afghanistan… the war against ISIS… and probably a number of other military actions that escape me at the moment… there are a lot of politicians… lobbyists… and military contractors making piles of money on these so called wars… this at a time when the American middle class has become a minority in our own country…
from zero hedge:
George Orwell, Edward Bernays & Perpetual War
Submitted by Zero Hedge reader “Ferrari”,
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-07/george-orwell-edward-bernays-perpetual-war
I agree with smapple that we need new terms to differentiate between “contributing jobs” and “negative-sum jobs”. I call the latter, negative-sum, because such jobs are more detrimental than “dig a hole, fill it up” jobs. Such jobs contribute nothing, while they create administrative burdens on the productive, reducing overall productivity.
Why the emphasis on jobs? In a perfect world more jobs equal more wealth to share. But not all jobs produce wealth, and the constant focus on jobs obscures that. We could employ all people and still be poorer for the effort. Sometimes I wonder if that isn’t the true goal. A poor People incapable of creating wealth are too busy demanding life sustaining government handouts to worry about freedom.
Our founding fathers sought opportunity before jobs; our current generation seems hellbent to close down opportunity for the certainty of government jobs (or handouts).
[…] Reposted from International Liberty […]
Better than an extraterrestrial invasion.
Countries can get by with very few people working, so long as the rest of the population has jobs administering the work and profits of the few who work. And since these jobs are not created spontaneously, government has to create them.
Maybe you could instead use the term “contributing job killer” because these jobs contribute nothing to society. In fact, they are simply leeches on the ordinary citizen.