Steve Benen @ MaddowBlog steps up to explain that the ACA is not costing 2 million jobs – it’s just enabling worker mobility:
Nearly two years ago, the CBO initially found that, thanks to the Affordable Care Act, in the coming years, many Americans will be able to leave their full-time jobs – by choice – because of the available benefits.
Much of the media interpreted this as evidence of the ACA hurting job creation and causing mass layoffs, but that isn’t what the findings said at all. In fact, this was good news for the reform law, not bad – we’re talking about a feature, not a bug.
One of the purposes of “Obamacare” is to help end something called “job lock.” The phrase describes a dynamic in which many Americans would like to leave their current jobs – to retire, to start a new business, whatever – but can’t because they and their families need the health benefits tied to their current job.
He notes that the GOP lawmakers are using this as evidence of the vast disruption ACA is causing the economy. Well, in a sense, they’re right – when a worker leaves a job, that means the employer has to hire and, possibly, train a new worker. The company is disrupted.
But, in the end, it’s a good thing as this also enables some folks to retire early – thus opening up jobs for those on the hunt. It just all depends on who you are – an employer, an employee – or a government worker tasked with getting that pesky unemployment rate down.
Steve’s source is The Hill, which I take to be deliberately misrepresenting the truth. Here’s the relevant outtake:
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 first paragraph explicitly claims ACA will enforce a reduction in work hours, while the second, while sounding like an elucidation, is actually quite different – it cleverly tries to make voluntary, desirable activities enabled by ACA seem like an inevitable, awful consequence. As Steve notes, workers will retire earlier, with more stability and confidence in their future, or they will change jobs, following such urges as fewer hours, more risk, or whatever else will motivate them – and thus making room for other workers in the ranks. One paragraph references total work hours, while the other references the size of the work force.
It’s a semantic shell game designed to suck in the uncareful reader.
