User Tag List

View Poll Results: Did Obamacare Slow the Recovery?

Voters
15. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    4 26.67%
  • It's likely (>50% chance)

    2 13.33%
  • It's unlikely (<50% chance)

    2 13.33%
  • No

    7 46.67%
First 5678 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 78

  1. #61
    Freaking Ratchet Rail Tracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,041

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    I understand that you think the assumptions you made were somehow embedded in there, but simply quoting a whole bunch of stuff doesn't actually prove it it. How about you form an argument about something specifically that I said that shows that what you said is true. Otherwise, you're just up in your head imagining nonsense.
    It is ok, I'm not asking you to consciously or even subconsciously understand the other 3.5 social policies.

    Nor am I truly asking you to look at your own thread you created for your own clues.

    Because, quite honestly, you're the one who should be defending - and you are making it less convincing for your argument to be brushing other arguments as asinine or irrelevant.


  2. #62
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rail Tracer View Post
    It is ok, I'm not asking you to consciously or even subconsciously understand the other 3.5 social policies.

    Nor am I truly asking you to look at your own thread you created for your own clues.

    Because, quite honestly, you're the one who should be defending - and you are making it less convincing for your argument to be brushing other arguments as asinine or irrelevant.

    As expected: a bunch of bullshit.

    You made a claim; you can't back it up.

  3. #63
    Freaking Ratchet Rail Tracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,041

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    As expected: a bunch of bullshit.

    You made a claim; you can't back it up.
    I've done all I can to stick a mirror in front of you.

    It is best for other people to try.

  4. #64
    The Unwieldy Clawed One Falcarius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    COOL
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    Dino None
    Posts
    2,565

    Default

    Maybe Falcarius has missed something, but he is not convinced there was a recovery pre-PPACA nor it being on going.

    Anyway, there are many reasons to critic the PPACA; mainly it not even achieving its whole object of providing universal access to healthcare, but the PPACA does not come anywhere near the dearth of economic output of the present health care cartel happens to be.
    Quote Originally Posted by Thalassa View Post
    Oh our 3rd person reference to ourselves denotes nothing more than we realize we are epic characters on the forum.

    Narcissism, plain and simple.

  5. #65
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rail Tracer View Post
    I've done all I can to stick a mirror in front of you.

    It is best for other people to try.
    Once again, nothing but a load of horseshit.

  6. #66
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    470

    Default

    recovery?

  7. #67
    Junior Member Icarus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    8w9 sx/sp
    Posts
    26

    Default

    The OP pretty much covered it. Obamacare raises the cost of hiring a new worker, therefore, hiring will slow. I think proponents of Obamacare would be better off arguing that it has other benefits that outweigh the economic consequences of the law.
    "I am the one who knocks."

    <3 Hyacinth

  8. #68
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tantive View Post
    recovery?
    Well, yeah, it's certainly not much of one...



    People like to tout this 4.5 million private jobs created over the last 30 months number like it's some sterling figure (they even used this in the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention, as if it were some sort of high note), but the fact of the matter is, just in order to keep up with population growth, you need to add 150K jobs / month, and 4.5 million jobs in 30 months just happens to be exactly 150K jobs / mo.

    In other words, the "recovery" we've experienced in job growth has been nothing more than population growth, really.

    Hence, why the real unemployment rate (adjusted for people dropping out of the labor force) is still ~11%.

    Quote Originally Posted by Icarus View Post
    The OP pretty much covered it. Obamacare raises the cost of hiring a new worker, therefore, hiring will slow. I think proponents of Obamacare would be better off arguing that it has other benefits that outweigh the economic consequences of the law.
    Hey look, somebody who gets basic economics.

    And I agree that that is the tack proponents must make...

    The only problem with that course of action is that we're in the middle of the biggest jobs crisis in 80 yrs.

    Which is why pushing Obamacare through was indefensible.

  9. #69
    null Jonny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    FREE
    Posts
    2,485

    Default

    Given the dubious nature of graphs such as these, I decided to go to the BLS website myself and download the raw data. Instead of using just the totals, I graphed the data by sector as well, in the hopes of getting a clearer picture. I have net jobs growth by month per industry from 2002 until August 2012, but chose to only graph the time-frame shown in the OP. A cursory glance seems to indicate that a majority of the drop-off was government job growth, which would seem to contradict your argument. Also, notice that if we projected that first linear approximation (from Jan 2009 to Apr 2010) forward into the present, the rate of predicted job growth per month would have been over a million jobs per month today. It seems to me that this would be an unrealistic expectation, and that a piece wise linear approximation with a break in Apr 2010 is an unrealistic model. Rather, one would expect the trajectory to level off after crossing from negative to positive, as it has.



    Thoughts? I'll study this a bit more, perhaps, and come back to this thread.


    Edit: From a purely logical standpoint, I would agree that, all else equal, spending time and money on healthcare necessarily takes something away from the recovery. However, at this point I'm inclined to disagree with your use of that graph/data to promote that view; it seems a bit misleading. Also, the question still remains as to whether or not we should attempt to promote job growth at the expense of all else, and to what extent the Affordable Care Act actually affected the recovery.

    My next step would be to assess the drop-off in employment growth year to year in the spring months, since the data seems to suggest this might be the cause of some of the dip as well.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  10. #70
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Nice, finally getting some intelligent responses...



    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnyboy View Post
    Given the dubious nature of graphs such as these, I decided to go to the BLS website myself and download the raw data. Instead of using just the totals, I graphed the data by sector as well, in the hopes of getting a clearer picture. I have net jobs growth by month per industry from 2002 until August 2012, but chose to only graph the time-frame shown in the OP.
    Would you mind actually showing it going further back?

    I think I understand it, but it would be helpful to see more years worth.

    It's also a bit odd without any units on the vertical axis, and a bit unruly with that many categories, when we don't know total employment in each category (and thus whether it just looks flat because the number of people employed in that sector is very small, and the units on the left [which we don't know], are too big to register much of a change in their numbers). I'm assuming the vertical axis units are the same for the conglomerated numbers as for the sector/industry numbers, and, since the sector/industry numbers are, naturally, going to be much smaller, it seems like it might be better to put these in two different charts (the conglomerated and the sector/industry), and to use different vertical axis units for each (larger for the conglomerate, smaller for the sector/industry). It might also work better as a bar graph, but I could see some benefits of a line.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnyboy View Post
    A cursory glance seems to indicate that a majority of the drop-off was government job growth, which would seem to contradict your argument.
    Not exactly.

    As I explained to ygolo, that spike and then equally-sized drop off in government hiring (which also seems to have flowed thru to service hiring, I'm assuming [as the same pattern exists there -- the definitions must overlap]) around the summer of 2010 was due to census hiring.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnyboy View Post
    Also, notice that if we projected that first linear approximation (from Jan 2009 to Apr 2010) forward into the present, the rate of predicted job growth per month would have been over a million jobs per month today. It seems to me that this would be an unrealistic expectation, and that a piece wise linear approximation with a break in Apr 2010 is an unrealistic model.
    This is true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnyboy View Post
    Rather, one would expect the trajectory to level off after crossing from negative to positive, as it has.
    This isn't.

    At least not necessarily.

    It's the bolded where it becomes a problem.

    One would expect it to eventually have to level off.

    It's the extent of the leveling off, and when/how it happens, that really matters, though.

    One would certainly expect it to level off eventually and to a reasonable degree, but in a normal recovery (like most others since WWI), one would expect more significant job growth than we've experienced after this one (is most post-war recoveries, the number of jobs lost in the recession are much more quickly added back in the recovery; hence, this recovery, and the last one (and even the one before the [in '91], to an extent), were "jobless recoveries" (something you and I talked about on vent a few weeks ago).

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnyboy View Post
    Thoughts?
    I would just emphasize remembering, because of your comments about the government jobs numbers in this data, that the question isn't whether Obamacare stopped but the recovery in the private sector, but whether it slowed it down.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnyboy View Post
    Edit: From a purely logical standpoint, I would agree that, all else equal, spending time and money on healthcare necessarily takes something away from the recovery.
    Sorry to nitpick here, but I'm wondering exactly what you mean.

    My argument was specifically that raising the marginal cost of hiring hurt hiring.

    Are you just agreeing with that logic, or are you bringing up another corroborating explanation?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnyboy View Post
    However, at this point I'm inclined to disagree with your use of that graph/data to promote that view; it seems a bit misleading.
    It merely serves to show the significant drop off in the improvement of the jobs numbers and how that happened to coincide with the passing of Obamacare, which is why I didn't say it proved anything, but merely provides support to the purely logical argument I laid out above it. It was designed for that purpose, obviously, and, as such, is promoting a certain view, but that doesn't necessarily make it wrong, either. It is what it is: worth taking a look at and considering.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnyboy View Post
    Also, the question still remains as to whether or not we should attempt to promote job growth at the expense of all else...
    Considering we're in the worst jobs crisis in 80 yrs, I don't think it a stretch to say that it ought be of the utmost priority.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnyboy View Post
    ...and to what extent the Affordable Care Act actually affected the recovery.
    That is the point of the thread.

Similar Threads

  1. How did you get the politics you did
    By Zergling in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 01-21-2016, 06:06 PM
  2. [INFP] How did you find the person of your dreams?
    By elementaltale in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 06-30-2010, 10:28 PM
  3. How did they accomplish the rarest of military feats?
    By coberst in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 07-04-2009, 12:09 AM
  4. Did Mice Domesticate the House Cat?
    By Oberon in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 01-31-2008, 08:47 AM
  5. Did I do the right thing?
    By Brendan in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05-24-2007, 06:25 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO