Free Market Family Values
7/2/14 12:52![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
paft.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsStuart Varney: Why don’t you just spend more time with the family, let somebody else work, you go on Obamacare… Stay home, spend more time with the family, let somebody else pay for your healthcare…
It began as the usual Obamacare Horror Story “Bombshell” going pfffffft. We’ve seen it happen, over and over again. A supposedly dire effect of the Affordable Care Act gets cited, which, on examination, turns out to involve someone who could easily afford it paying a higher premium or (in the case of “Bette,” cited during a Republican response to the SOTU) someone who’s been “victimized” by her own refusal to use the options offered by the ACA.
The latest involves the release of the Congressional Budget Office’s report on the impact of the ACA. “Law will reduce fulltime employment by about 2 million,” it was announced. “Healthcare Law will reduce hours worked by about 1.5% to 2% from 2017-2024”
“You wonder how they explain it,” exclaimed a Fox Anchor.
Wouldn’t you know it, CBO director Doug Elmendorf went and spoiled everything by explaining it. See, it’s not so much a matter of jobs being eliminated. It’s a matter of many workers now having the option of reducing their hours or, if they have enough savings, retiring completely from the workforce. As the report says (emphasis added),
The estimated reduction stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply, rather than from a net drop in businesses' demand for labor…
So what’s the next step on the right? Act outraged that many workers will actually be in a position to, not just leave jobs they dislike for jobs they prefer, but also cut back on their work hours so they can spend more time with their (get this) families.
Or worse yet, if they’ve got enough in savings, retire!
Jon Stewart puts it beautifully in his reaction in Varney’s comments, “What the Hell? You’re conservatives. I thought you guys loved the family.”…’The family must be protected from asteroids, nuclear weapons, dudes in love, they have to be protected!’”
Some of you may remember last autumn a thread on retail workers being made to work on Thanksgiving (or, as one sniveling coward of a retailer put it in its ads, “Thursday.”) Stewart remembers the issue too.
“Now that I think about it,” he observes, “When family clashes with capitalism around the holidays, conservatives throw family overboard.”
Yes, yes, I remember the arguments I encountered here. Giving an employee paid time off on that day is a dire restriction of their freedom. Demanding they come in to work on a major holiday isn’t going to seriously crimp any plans. Nobody books air tickets months in advance and endures long security lines and packed planes for the sake of traveling to see the folks on that day. And requiring someone to man the toy department on Thanksgiving Day is just the same as asking emergency and health workers, airline and telecom employees and other vital transportation and communication personnel to work on that day.
Which left me with the spooky sense the Internet is not just a revolutionary means of communication that spans the globe. It may very well enable us to interact with the inhabitants of some parallel universe where airports are all but empty in late November through December and retail workers are clamoring for the chance to work on what, (in this universe,) is a wildly popular, family oriented holiday.
I kid, of course. The people making these bizarre arguments are, in fact, inhabitants of our world, who, for the sake of defending the indefensible, are willing to feign a complete disconnection from reality. But the more I listen to free market conservatives, the more it sounds as though they believe only upper management should reproduce. In the minds of these folks, people making below a certain amount have no business bearing children or keeping in touch with aging relatives or siblings.
Apparently, a JOB is not a way for people to support themselves and their dependents while contributing to either the private or public sector. If it pays so little and takes up so much time that there is nothing left for friends and family, workers shouldn’t complain. They should just be glad they have a JOB.
A JOB after all, is a quasi-religious requirement, which establishes a firm caste system (see the arguments about whether someone who digs ditches 40 hours a week “deserves” a living wage) and trumps any other personal tie or obligation.
*
It began as the usual Obamacare Horror Story “Bombshell” going pfffffft. We’ve seen it happen, over and over again. A supposedly dire effect of the Affordable Care Act gets cited, which, on examination, turns out to involve someone who could easily afford it paying a higher premium or (in the case of “Bette,” cited during a Republican response to the SOTU) someone who’s been “victimized” by her own refusal to use the options offered by the ACA.
The latest involves the release of the Congressional Budget Office’s report on the impact of the ACA. “Law will reduce fulltime employment by about 2 million,” it was announced. “Healthcare Law will reduce hours worked by about 1.5% to 2% from 2017-2024”
“You wonder how they explain it,” exclaimed a Fox Anchor.
Wouldn’t you know it, CBO director Doug Elmendorf went and spoiled everything by explaining it. See, it’s not so much a matter of jobs being eliminated. It’s a matter of many workers now having the option of reducing their hours or, if they have enough savings, retiring completely from the workforce. As the report says (emphasis added),
The estimated reduction stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply, rather than from a net drop in businesses' demand for labor…
So what’s the next step on the right? Act outraged that many workers will actually be in a position to, not just leave jobs they dislike for jobs they prefer, but also cut back on their work hours so they can spend more time with their (get this) families.
Or worse yet, if they’ve got enough in savings, retire!
Jon Stewart puts it beautifully in his reaction in Varney’s comments, “What the Hell? You’re conservatives. I thought you guys loved the family.”…’The family must be protected from asteroids, nuclear weapons, dudes in love, they have to be protected!’”
Some of you may remember last autumn a thread on retail workers being made to work on Thanksgiving (or, as one sniveling coward of a retailer put it in its ads, “Thursday.”) Stewart remembers the issue too.
“Now that I think about it,” he observes, “When family clashes with capitalism around the holidays, conservatives throw family overboard.”
Yes, yes, I remember the arguments I encountered here. Giving an employee paid time off on that day is a dire restriction of their freedom. Demanding they come in to work on a major holiday isn’t going to seriously crimp any plans. Nobody books air tickets months in advance and endures long security lines and packed planes for the sake of traveling to see the folks on that day. And requiring someone to man the toy department on Thanksgiving Day is just the same as asking emergency and health workers, airline and telecom employees and other vital transportation and communication personnel to work on that day.
Which left me with the spooky sense the Internet is not just a revolutionary means of communication that spans the globe. It may very well enable us to interact with the inhabitants of some parallel universe where airports are all but empty in late November through December and retail workers are clamoring for the chance to work on what, (in this universe,) is a wildly popular, family oriented holiday.
I kid, of course. The people making these bizarre arguments are, in fact, inhabitants of our world, who, for the sake of defending the indefensible, are willing to feign a complete disconnection from reality. But the more I listen to free market conservatives, the more it sounds as though they believe only upper management should reproduce. In the minds of these folks, people making below a certain amount have no business bearing children or keeping in touch with aging relatives or siblings.
Apparently, a JOB is not a way for people to support themselves and their dependents while contributing to either the private or public sector. If it pays so little and takes up so much time that there is nothing left for friends and family, workers shouldn’t complain. They should just be glad they have a JOB.
A JOB after all, is a quasi-religious requirement, which establishes a firm caste system (see the arguments about whether someone who digs ditches 40 hours a week “deserves” a living wage) and trumps any other personal tie or obligation.
*
(no subject)
Date: 8/2/14 16:03 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/2/14 20:39 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/2/14 21:16 (UTC)And he doesn't hide his racism too terribly well either. (http://joeforamerica.com/2013/10/america-needs-white-republican-president/) Pretty much "Yikes!" material.
(no subject)
Date: 8/2/14 21:36 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/2/14 22:20 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/2/14 01:56 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/2/14 02:11 (UTC)You're assuming that this will mean full time workers will no longer work full time, as opposed to people retiring and those working ridiculous hours no longer having to in order to afford health care (the CBO explicitly states they don't try to differentiate the two). Now, some (like you) think this has to do with people choosing not to work so much in order to get more government money, which unless the system is exceptionally flawed would not make sense (i.e. the subsidies would have to get larger than the income one loses for it to make economic sense); this is as ridiculous as the argument people make that progressive tax systems discourage people from working.
Actually, I just went and read it and that's exactly what the CBO are saying.
So yes, I think the CBO can't do maths, or at least, they can't do sociology.
(no subject)
Date: 9/2/14 02:39 (UTC)You do realize that has been a major complaint of the ACA for a long time? The subsidies drop off suddenly at higher incomes. You can make a dollar over the limit, and stand to lose several thousand in subsidies.
(no subject)
Date: 9/2/14 07:08 (UTC)If your income is Your expected contribution will be
100%-133% of FPL 2% of your income
133%-150% of FPL 3%-4% of your income
150%-200% of FPL 4%-6.3% of your income
200%-250% of FPL 6.3%-8.05% of your income
250%-300% of FPL 8.05%-9.5% of your income
300%-400% of FPL 9.5% of your income
That seems pretty tapered to me...
Sure, when you're at 401% of the FPL you're going to lose out on the benefits, but (and it's *really* hard to find figures here) that looks like a few thousand at the most. 400% FPL is around $45K, which means that the first 4.5% increase in income over 400% you lose (and yes, the tapering could be better done so the drop isn't *so* much), so we're talking about a few hours a week. For what you're saying to work, you have to assume that someone is going to go "well, I'm not going to pick up an extra 10% (whatever) income because I lose the first 4.5% of it. Sure, some people may do it, but most people will be thinking of the extra 5.5% of income they will get for the extra 10% work. So this really only applies to those increases that are only a small increment over 400% of FPL. I imagine that companies will work out sneaky techniques to get around that in other ways (I don't know how your fringe benefits taxation works over there, but rather than getting a payrise of 400% FPL you might get, say, a fuel card, or some other gratuity that doesn't have to be declared as income).
$2000 looks like a big figure, but it's under $40 a week (this is a single person earning $45K, that's not struggle street). Is someone *really* going to forego an extra $100 a week just because they're only going to see $60 of it? Again, it's the progressive taxes make people work less argument, and it's been shown to only exist in the minds of people who are against means tested welfare and progressive taxes, not actually happening in the real world. Again, I admit that Fox news will be able to find a handful of people who do say "stuff it, $45kpa is enough, I'm not going to work anymore", but I'd wager they'd be doing that anyway.
(no subject)
Date: 9/2/14 16:14 (UTC)The CBO looked into this, and I fully trust their math over yours.
(no subject)
Date: 10/2/14 10:28 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/2/14 14:22 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/2/14 08:04 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/2/14 16:16 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/2/14 16:18 (UTC)