Among the more peculiar arguments Democrats made in favor of their health-care bill last year was that it would create new jobs. Days before the final vote, for instance, Nancy Pelosi
insisted that “it’s about jobs. In its life, [the bill] will create 4 million jobs — 400,000 jobs almost immediately.”
In a hearing of the House Budget Committee today, Paul Ryan asked CBO director Douglas Elmendorf about that claim, saying that some people have argued the new law “will create jobs and increase labor force participation. But if I recall from your analysis, it was quite the opposite. Is that not the case?” Elmendorf answered “Yes.”
Rep. John Campbell then asked him to expand on that point:
Campbell: You just mentioned that you believe—or that in your estimate, that the health-care law would reduce the labor used in the economy by about one half of one percent. Given that, I believe you say, there’s 160 million full-time people working in 2021, that means that, in your estimation, the health-care law would reduce employment by 800,000 in 2021. Is that correct?
Elmendorf: Yes. The way I would put it is that we do estimate, as you said, that household employment will be about 160 million by the end of the decade. Half a percent of that is 800,000.
That’s 800,000 fewer jobs people employed in ten years than we would have had without the law, even if you accept all the dubious assumptions that CBO was required to accept about future spending and taxes under the law.
UPDATE: This post originally referred simply to the number of jobs rather than the number of people working in 2021—CBO notes that the law will reduce the supply of labor as well as the demand, and they expect the greatest effect to be on supply at the margins of Medicaid eligibility, where the expansion of Medicaid will significantly reduce incentives to work. The 800,000 figure combines both effects—the agency did not provide a specific figure for the effect of the diminished demand for labor alone. I should have been clearer and more specific.
Ryan should better phrase questions for great points like that. "But if I recall from your analysis, it was quite the opposite. Is that not the case?” Answer "Yes." It's the kind of Q&A a very junior lawyer would tie himself up with.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's a great point, but badly phrased with the "is the opposite teh case, yes" Not a good soundbite. the other guy is better asking, "Will the bill reduce jobs?" and getting a "yes" answer. that's easy for people to track and understand.
Per the CBO the loss of 800,000 is due to older workers retiring earlier because of access to affordable health not tied to the job.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, Yuval, you're very confused. You don't distinguish between jobs and workers, probably because you don't understand it. The jobs will be there, but 800k fewer people will need them because they'll be able to retire without having medical bills bankrupt them. This is, Yuval, good, not bad. Try as you might.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuserandom, the tortured language of Ryan's question is a big whopping hint that the Representative is attempting to fool you. See other comments on the meaning of the 800,000 number. This isn't difficult, folks.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe liberal propagandists are out in force tonight. If you are going to walk into the opposition's house, then you had better back up your claims with references and links. In case I am not clear, I am calling you out.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDoesn't matter that the author got his facts wrong in claiming 800k jobs lost. Instapundit linked to another blogger who linked here. It is now gospel among those who desperately want to believe the new health care bill will cost 800,000 people their jobs.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDear Kyle in Michigan,
External Link
Sincerely,
Liberal Propagandist
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWho would have thought that liberals would forget about Medicare and Social Security. Older workers get both and don't need to work to afford healthcare. At any age, people work for salaries. The reason there will be fewer jobs is because Obamacare's mandates and taxes will leave businesses with less money to hire workers and to invest in new products, services, equipment and processes that would require hiring new workers in the first place.
Obamacare is a job-killer. Period.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKyle, it's not about propaganda, it's about being able to read. That said, given your content-free post, why not take some of your own advice? Do you have a different interpretation of Ryan's tortured phrasing in an effort to get a "Yes" from Elmendorf? Or are you just opposing the opposition for politics sake?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is insane to believe that he means that 800,000 people will stop working b/c they suddenly have "free" health care.
He is talking about how many jobs there will be in 2021, and he is estimating that the labor used in the economy will be reduced by 1/2 a percent.
so, are you claiming that after tehse people retire there will be no need for their employers to replace them? Or why does the 800,000 people retiring b/c of "free health care" suddenly reduce the # of people working?
in other words, he is estimating that the number of people working will be 1/2 a percent less than it would be without Obamacare. You people claim that is a good thing. If your idiotic claims were correct, it would not end in fewer people working, but less unemployment, i.e., the number of jobs would remain constant but the number of people wanting jobs would be reduced by 800,000. That is not what he is claiming. He is saying there will be 800,000 less jobs.
So, despite your spine for this idiotic health care bill, you are incorrect.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusethe difference is liberals see employers as welfare offices and conservatives view it as a job opportunity to succeed or fail depending on how you work, employers will not hire or they may lay off rather then spend a lot of money on the health care law why because, liberals may want to sit down. because the idea of running a business is making what is called corporate profits, not providing welfare you provide it for yourself with what is called a paycheck.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy is it that when Pelosi says it will create jobs and Elmendorf says it will kill jobs there is never a "because" with the statement. Just saying either one does not make it so. I believe it will kill jobs too but the only way to win the argument is to tell everyone why.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, Monkeytoe, it's not insane. It's *exactly* what the CBO said. If the CBO meant that 800,000 jobs would be lost, it would say "800,000 jobs would be lost." It doesn't say that. It says labor *participation* will go down by 800,000, and it says WHY: Because 800,000 people will decide they don't need to work anymore. You may disagree, o esteemed economist, but you're not entitled to pretend the CBO said X when it said Y.
Here we are at the epicenter of people who claim to love the market, and you don't even understand the difference between supply and demand. The CBO said labor *supply* will go down, and you brainiacs say "AHA! ObamaCare is reducing labor demand!"
Supply and demand are opposites! Good grief!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThanks for the update, Yuval.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse