Obamacare will push 2 million workers out of labor market: CBO

Posted by on Feb 04, 2014 at 10:34 am

Obamacare will push the equivalent of about 2 million workers out of the labor market by 2017 as employees decide either to work fewer hours or drop out altogether, according to the latest estimates Tuesday from the Congressional Budget Office.

That’s a major jump in the nonpartisan budget agency’s projections and it suggests the health care law’s incentives are driving businesses and people to choose government-sponsored benefits rather than work.


CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the total number of hours worked, on net, by about 1.5 to 2 percent during the period from 2017 to 2024, almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor — given the new taxes and other incentives they will face and the financial benefits some will receive,” CBO analysts wrote in their new economic outlook.

The scorekeepers also said the rollout problems with the Affordable Care Act last year will mean only 6 million people sign up through the state-based exchanges, rather than the 7 million the CBO had originally projected.

Full story.

3 Responses to “Obamacare will push 2 million workers out of labor market: CBO”

  1. xsnake on 4/04/14 at 7:49 pm

    Demz are geniuses at turning lemons into bull droppings and then (with full cooperation of the NYT and the rest of the msm), declaring it the finest of all lemonades.

  2. Neo on 6/06/14 at 8:12 am

    The distinction to this argument today is that ObamaDoesn’tCare in fact doesn’t force employers to not employ these 2 to 2.5 million people but that these people will see that it is to their advantage not to work additional hours and will cut themselves off.

    Wow! The government has create a incentive to not work, to be less productive, to remain in your station, to create more “income inequality.”

    And, tell me again .. which Party will be campaigning against “income inequality” this year ?

  3. Neo on 11/11/14 at 4:44 am

    The Ross Douthat piece struck me in in more than a couple of ways.First, it had the feel of the Star Trek: Next Generation episode when the crew defrosted a bunch of folks from the 21st century, only to inform them that the persuit of money had no value any more. I noticed that this theme was never again used in any Star Trek episode across all of the franchises.It must have raised more questions than could be answered, like .. why would anybody be a “serf” in such an enlightened age ? Who would want a dangerous task ? Why wouldn’t they all want to be Captain of a Star Fleet vessel ?

    On the conservative side, things are somewhat clearer. There are libertarians who like the basic income idea, but only as a substitute for the existing welfare state, not as a new expansion. Both “rugged individualist” right-wingers and more communitarian conservatives tend to see work as essential to dignity, mobility and social equality, and see its decline as something to be fiercely resisted.

    … this brings me to the second point, on the conservative side, things are somewhat clearer. Who would be able to survive a Zombie Apocalypse ?In the such an event, the Progressive bastions, the cities, who look like “World War Z.” None of them would survive.
    Lastly, Douthat thinks we live in a ‘post-scarcity society.’ Isn’t the whole underlying political point of AGW that oil is scare ? .. notice that in the AGW mindset of politicians, it isn’t that carbon is completely bad, it’s that fossil fuels aren’t renewable.’Post-scarcity society’ fits in the Obama-esque world that is also post-partisan and post-racial … these fit so well in the world with unicorns.
    Which world that is ? .. I have no idea.