Given the red tape and potential for a lawsuit from firing an employee, I think the disemployment effects from a future cost increase as a result of federal policy might even be understated in this post.
Nick Bormann: Given the red tape and potential for a lawsuit from firing an employee, I think the disemployment effects from a future cost increase as a result of federal policy might even be understated in this post.
Definitely. Over the past few years we've also seen a large (tens of percent) minimum wage increase, a pile of new regulation on capital (Dodd-Frank), another pile on manufacturing (EPA rules, CAFE), and if memory serves, new rules to make it easier for an employee to sue his employer. I'm pretty sure that's only a fraction of it.
Bryan Caplan: Even if you think two years plenty of time to recover, you should be worried that employers might foresee this $2000 or $3000 surcharge on every worker they hire - and decline to create another job before the law kicks in.
Isn't it funny how the people who write and advocate these rules assume that they can see the future clearly, but the people they're regulating can't?
So are you saying that if the economy were humming along then Obamacare would be OK? Or is this one of those "Now more than ever" arguments?
If it's the former then I would point out that it seems reasonable that a Keynesian who is strongly in favor of the long term goals of Obamacare would support it in spite of the poor timing of the disemployment effects. He might prefer a better timing for it, but you take what you can get.
If it's the latter, then this seems to be a needless distraction from a more important argument.
I am against any law that exempts employers of few then x employee. If it is important enough to force larger employers to do it, it should be important enough for small employers.
Addendum: I also do not like exemptions for part time workers.
I would hope that not exempting anyone would keep regulations to a minimum rather than forcing small employers to comply with more.
I see no reason that Gov should favor small employers or part time work over big companies and full time work. The politicians just fear the repercussions of their actions if everyone is covered by their laws. To me this shows that they understand that the laws they pass are not a great idea.
It's interesting. Is there a time when there was considerable uncertainty about whether the original Obama care would pass, which was then resolved? If Caplan is right we should see effect on unemployment. Maybe unemployment is too noisy, but what about the stock market or some measure of NGDP?
Maybe the noise is too great and the treatment too small. Yet, if Republicans are elected, there is a much better chance the law will be repealed. Is there some measure to see, if Republican chances or certain Republican chances effect unemployment or NGDP?
If the effects are large, we should be able to come up with some clever way to measure them, right?
Speaking from one of the ten countries left that have a Triple A credit rating (and which all have socialised medicine), please get over it.
Making your health system more equitable is a hugely important step for the future of your country. How "free-marketeers" or "libertarians" can in conscience argue that the nightmare of a health system you have now is better than Obamacare, is totally beyond me. But then you lot think guns are good, too.
Gavin,
You may have a good point in there, but you have loaded your statement in such a way that no one you're trying to convince will take any note of it.
Perhaps try it without "guns" or "libertarians" and see if it reads better.
Read Full Article »