Posted by Tina
There are expressions that just seem to come out of the blue. Words or phrases that most people have never heard or used that spring into the headlines. “Job locked” is just such a coupling of words. In recent days a new CBO report caused an uproar. Suddenly Americans were advised that the good news coming out of the report included the fact that the public no longer had to worry about being “job locked”. Low information voters immediately nodded their heads and issued the obligatory, “Yeah man!” response.
Apparently this little know condition has plagued many American workers who have suffered in silence, that is, until being saved by Obamacare. Now, miraculously, they have been set free! That’s right, the ultra expensive, restrictive and controlling law has allegedly set millions of Americans free!
Or has it?
The folks over at Investors.com asked the Small Business Administration, an organization that tracks how and when people change jobs, if the figures being proffered were accurate. Their input puts into question Nancy Pelosi’s claim that “The Affordable Care Act will enable more than 2 million workers to escape ‘job-lock’ — the situation where workers remain tied to employers for access to health insurance benefits.” Not only is her figure questionable but its unclear whether Obamacare will fix the problem:
First, the fact is that the U.S. job market is highly fluid, with workers switching jobs, and even careers, more often today than ever.
The average baby boomer held more than 11 jobs between age 18 and 46, according to a Bureau of Labor Statistics study. Of those who started a new job during their early 40s, a third had switched jobs within a year.
And for men at least, job switching has increased over the past five decades. Back in 1973, the median time at a job was 11.5 years for men age 45-54. Today it’s 8.5 years. And while 58% of men in their late 40s had been at the same job more than 10 years in 1983, fewer than 45% could make such a claim by 2012.
At the same time, the number of self-employed was climbing sharply in the years before the last recession, also belying the notion of workers hopelessly locked into their jobs because of health insurance.
What’s a voter to do? Keep in mind that politicians are always looking for ways to positively present their case to the public. Exaggeration and misrepresentation of fact is not unusual. In the next few months we will be inundated with statistics and facts that are chosen to massage and influence. We voters have to be above the quick turn of phrase and the carefully constructed set of words. We must look at a broad canvas; single issues and pet projects are not reason enough to determine qualifications of a worthy leader. A candidates overall experience and record are far more informative than a single vote on a single issue or a turn of phrase that on the surface seems smart.
This article suggests that the figure Nancy Pelosi used was pulled out of a hat. Common sense suggests that there are many elements that figure in a persons decision to keep a job or move on. Common sense suggests that if a person needs to change jobs he will do some research and secure a position that includes healthcare coverage before quitting if healthcare is the top priority. Closer inspection suggests that the Democrats use of the words “job locked” was a ploy. It’s exactly the type of thing that can lead to the election of a very poor performing representative.
We need strong qualified leaders with solid ideas to fix the mess and jump start the economy. Pay close attention, avoid falling for empty ploys, and choose wisely in November.
Tina: “There are expressions that just seem to come out of the blue. Words or phrases that most people have never heard or used that spring into the headlines. “Job locked” is just such a coupling of words. In recent days a new CBO report caused an uproar. Suddenly Americans were advised that the good news coming out of the report included the fact that the public no longer had to worry about being “job locked”. Low information voters immediately nodded their heads and issued the obligatory, “Yeah man!” response.”
Ridiculous. All you have to do is google “job lock Republicans” to find numerous examples of Republicans bringing up the issue of job lock prior to the enactment of the ACA. This was something Republicans used to be against, until Obamacare happened.
It’s hypocritical and revealing that you would call other people “low information voters” for being familiar with a term that you yourself are not. It’s hard to fathom the arrogance of someone who thinks that because they’ve never heard of something, it’s not real.
Paul Ryan, 2009: “[The] key question that ought to be addressed in any healthcare reform legislation is, are we going to continue job-lock or are we going to allow individuals more choice and portability to fit the 21st century workforce?”
https://grabien.com/file.php?id=10708
Heritage Foundation, 2008: “Today, leaving a job or changing jobs means leaving behind the health insurance provided at the place of work. Individuals who wish to take a better job, change careers, or leave the workforce to raise a family or to retire early take substantial risks. […] Under the McCain plan, which links tax breaks directly to individuals instead of to their place of work, individuals would no longer feel obligated to stay with their employers simply because they need to keep their employer-based health insurance.”
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/10/the-mccain-health-care-plan-more-power-to-families
Mitt Romney, 2012: “Of course there are a number of things that I like in health care reform that I’m going to put in place…. I also want individuals to be able to buy insurance, health insurance, on their own as opposed to only being able to get it on a tax advantage basis through their company.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/09/mitt-romney-obamacare-_n_1868385.html
Avik Roy, former health care adviser to Mitt Romney, 2012: “The employer-based system leads to ‘job lock,’ whereby people are afraid to leave their jobs if they fall ill on the job, because switching plans could mean higher premiums or denial of coverage.”
http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
John McCain, 2008: “One of the biggest limitations of our current health care system is that leaving a job often means leaving your health care plan. This makes it harder for Americans to build a relationship with a doctor over a long period of time, and it makes it less likely that insurance companies will invest in keeping their patients well rather than simply treating them when they are sick. Additionally, “job lock” reduces opportunities for American workers because they often pass up new jobs for fear of losing their health care coverage.”
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=182766
Now obviously, these guy weren’t praising Obamacare, and they believe that their solutions for reducing job lock are better. There are reasonable arguments to be made for that position. “Job lock isn’t a real problem, just something the Democrats made up yesterday” obviously isn’t one of those reasonable arguments.
Jeffery Tucker seems to be implicitly taking his GOP colleagues to task in this Daily Caller piece titled “Yes, Republicans, Job Lock Matters:”
Practically overnight and without warning, the D.C. pundit class is actually talking about a hugely important fact of modern life as it relates to health care. Yes, hard to believe, but true. The phrase in question is “job lock,” and it refers to the ways in which employer-provided health care ties workers to jobs they hate and massively reduces job mobility.
This has been a gigantic issue in job markets for more than half a century. It seriously compromises worker decision making. You know this just by chatting it up anyone you know who hates his or her job. Why not bail? If you are talking openly, eventually the issue of healthcare comes up. People are so grateful for this apparent perk that they will put up with abusive bosses, demeaning and dead-end jobs, and terrible coworkers, essentially ruining their own prospects for moving up in the world.
This is bad for absolutely everyone. You end up with a nation of sad sacks who dream of sticking it to the man should they ever muster the courage. It’s a bad deal for employers too, who don’t really relish being hated by those he or she pays to serve the business.
What employer-provided health care does is effectively give the employer more power over the employee than would otherwise exist. Ideally, it should be an even contract, a pure exchange of service for property. But with perks like health care in lieu of wages, the employer can engage in a subtle form of blackmail: if you leave, if you disobey, if you step out of line, you might find yourself back in the gutter in a job without benefits.
This is a tremendously terrifying prospect for millions, and it has made a mess of the free bargaining that should characterize the relationship between labor and capital. The irony is also intense. All these mandates came about in the name of granting employees more rights, and, truly, people are glad to get health care. But in real life, it doesn’t work this way. The more that wages are paid out in benefits, the more stuck the worker feels.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/06/yes-republicans-job-lock-matters/#ixzz2t8jNLrBI
Tucker goes on to argue against the ACA and in favor of free market efforts to de-link health insurance and employment. I’m not sure I agree with his policies, but I at least have to respect a Republican who is willing to recognize that the current power imbalance of the employer-employee relationship is way too extreme, and not the natural state of things.
It seems the water boy’s major complaint is that when the term “job-lock” was been used by Republicans it was largely ignored.
DOH! The above should have read “It seems the water boy’s major complaint is that when the term “job-lock” had been used by Republicans it was largely ignored.”
Good point Pie.
I don’t think they used it as an excuse for one of many gawdawful effects of their signature legislation, the jobs picture, either.
In fact, the point they were making was that any good healthcare legislation would free both employee and employer.
Chris you have a point. Some people, including low information voters, MIGHT be familiar with the term.
I doubt, though, that it’s a term thrown around by the average Joe on a regular basis, even when talking about not being able to leave his job because he needs the insurance.
As an aside I’ll bet that the same Joe bragged when he got the job that it included great healthcare benefits!
Life is filled with choices; not all of them comfy.
It’s interesting too that you chose to prove the term was main stream by citing Republicans explaining a condition rather than the average Joe using it in everyday speech or Democrats using it to attempt to put a happier face on a report about a terrible consequence of the healthcare law. The headline was: Worker hours cut resulting in equivalent 2.5 million jobs lost.
Democrats were scrambling to overcome that bad news and you know it!
Pie: “It seems the water boy’s major complaint is that when the term “job-lock” had been used by Republicans it was largely ignored.”
No, my major complaint was that Tina falsely claimed that the term “job lock” is a recent invention by Democrats, and that only “low information voters” would think job lock was a problem, when in fact both the problem and the exact term have been acknowledged by several prominent Republicans over the past few years.
My major problem is with someone accusing other people of being ignorant while simultaneously revealing her own ignorance.
But since you mention it, I agree that it’s a shame Republicans were ignored when they brought up the issue of job lock in the past. They have a point about de-linking health insurance from employment. I don’t know if I’d favor any of their specific policies, but this seems to be one area where the left and right can actually agree.
That’s what makes the Republican reaction to the CBO report so frustrating. Job lock used to be an issue the left and right both agreed was a problem. Now we have people like Tina pooh-poohing the problem, apparently for no other reason than the fact that Obamacare is taking steps to solve it.
Tina: “Chris you have a point. Some people, including low information voters, MIGHT be familiar with the term.”
So if low information voters have heard of the term, and you hadn’t…what exactly does that make you?
“I doubt, though, that it’s a term thrown around by the average Joe on a regular basis, even when talking about not being able to leave his job because he needs the insurance.”
What is your point? The “average Joe” has probably never heard of lots of terms that we debate here. That doesn’t mean it isn’t valid to discuss those terms. Whether or not most people have heard the term “job lock,” they’re aware of the problem of not being able to leave a job because they need to keep their insurance. So what exactly is your beef?
“Life is filled with choices; not all of them comfy.”
This is exactly the dismissive attitude that the Daily Caller piece was criticizing.
You seem to believe that if something is not a problem for you, it isn’t a problem worth acknowledging. We should bend over backwards to make sure that the richest 2% don’t have to pay any more in taxes, but millions of employees who would retire, switch jobs or cut back their hours if it weren’t for the need for insurance is no big deal to you.
“It’s interesting too that you chose to prove the term was main stream by citing Republicans explaining a condition rather than the average Joe using it in everyday speech or Democrats using it to attempt to put a happier face on a report about a terrible consequence of the healthcare law.”
Why is that interesting? This is what you claimed:
“Closer inspection suggests that the Democrats use of the words “job locked” was a ploy.”
I countered by explaining that prominent Republicans, including the last two presidential candidates, have used this term for years to describe the exact situation being described by Democrats. You have provided nothing to dispute the accuracy of this term.
“The headline was: Worker hours cut resulting in equivalent 2.5 million jobs lost.”
Yes, and that was an extremely misleading headline, created by irresponsible journalists. When people here that hours are being “cut,” their natural assumption is that the employer is cutting them. The headlines should have explained that workers will be voluntarily cutting their own hours. Even respectable outlets like Reuters used this misleading headline, even though they explained the real story in the article.
“Democrats were scrambling to overcome that bad news and you know it!”
It’s not bad news. It’s what Republicans have been asking for for years, as I have shown you. What they were “scrambling to overcome” was the misleading and in some cases downright dishonest reports that implied employers were the ones cutting hours. You engaged in this dishonesty just the other day on this blog, writing:
“One of the unintended consequence of Obamacare is fewer jobs and jobs with fewer hours offered. the latest spin by the Democrats is that this is a good thing! Isn’t it wonderful that single moms can stay home with their kids…isn’t it great that families will have more time together?”
This clearly implies that Democrats were responding to a cut in “hours offered,” which is simply not true.
But you weren’t alone. John Beohner tweeted, “Pres. Obama’s #hcr law expected to destroy 2.3 million jobs.” This is ridiculous. If someone voluntarily decides to leave a job or cut back their hours, we do not say the job is “destroyed.”
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/feb/05/john-boehner/john-boehner-says-obamacare-expected-destroy-23-mi/
Eric Cantor went even further, saying, “The CBO’s latest report confirms what Republicans have been saying for years now. Under Obamacare, millions of hardworking Americans will lose their jobs.”
http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2014/feb/07/eric-cantor/cantor-says-cbo-predicts-obamacare-will-cause-mill/
Again, it is obviously wrong to say that the CBO reports said anything like this. It did not say millions of Americans would “lose” their jobs. It said that they would give them up or cut back on their hours.
We have a huge unemployment rate in this country. The supply of workers is not in any danger. If someone who can afford to cut their hours or quits their job does so, that leaves more room for a worker who needs a job to come in and take that job. Can you explain to me how this is a bad thing?
Nancy Pelosi’s forehead lock …
https://twitter.com/KatiePavlich/status/433778160061399040
BETTER STORY
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/12/1277165/-Lawyer-accuses-Rand-Paul-of-plagerizing-lawsuit-against-NSA-No-really?
Chris: “my major complaint was that Tina falsely claimed that the term “job lock” is a recent invention by Democrats, and that only “low information voters” would think job lock was a problem”
I wrote no such thing. You inserted your own negative biases into what I wrote:
“You seem to believe that if something is not a problem for you, it isn’t a problem worth acknowledging”
Yeah…the CBO reports that the equivalent of 2.5 million jobs will be lost over several years because of Obamacare Democrats aren’t bringing up job lock as a means of changing the subject. You are a moron if you think we haven’t noticed and you are a disingenuous a$$hole if you think that attacking me will also change the subject.
The law sucks. That is the real problem for you Chris…the law just sucks. It is the wort piece of legislation, with the promise to do extensive damage, both personal and economic, ever conceived! No amount of phony beautification will change the fact. YOU, my friend, need to fess up because your defense of the law and those who attempt to make it sound wonderful is the biggest lie of all.
Bah!
Oh look! Dewey’s article managed to open to include every single target that Democrats have bludgeoned because they pose a good old American threat to the Marxist dream:
Pie, thanks…I really, really needed a good laugh!
Tina: “Yeah…the CBO reports that the equivalent of 2.5 million jobs will be lost over several years because of Obamcare Democrats aren’t bringing up job lock as a means of changing the subject.”
That is not “changing the subject.” The jobs “lost” are going away BECAUSE there will be less people subject to job lock. Do you see how explaining this is not “changing the subject?” It’s providing necessary context. If people just hear that “2.5 million jobs will be lost due to Obamacare” without knowing why, they are going to naturally assume it’s due to firings or employer-mandated cuts.
Now, you can argue that this reduction in the workforce is still a bad thing even if it is voluntary. You can criticize Democrats for being overly positive. But you’ve been criticizing them for accurately describing the situation of job lock and accurately explaining that this is the reason for the reduction in jobs. That’s not a rational argument.
I will pay the ObamCare fine before being forced to pay for some crappy expensive thing I dont want and don’t need. Several nurses I know said they would also pay the fine. The point is, we dont want it, we don’t make enough as it is and now this stupid forced insurance? Nurses are already paying too much for their insurance. Now we have to pay more so medi-cal welfare patients can have it even easier, NO WAY!
By the way, I have a patient who is in her 60’s and there’s nothing wrong with her. She lays in bed all day, forces us to wipe her butt and change her bed pan and she has full use of her hands, no reason for us to be doing this. She says she knows her rights and refuses to be discharged. She’s a fat slob and playing the system for all its worth and YOU are paying for her to be there. We can’t kick her out, so she’s got us or rather she got all of us.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us Sandy. We always welcome new voices and love hearing from others.
I don’t blame you a bit for paying the fine. the catch is, the fine will go up in coming years. I hope we can scrap this horrible law and replace it with reforms that are simple and address the real problems in the insurance industry. If we do it right it will make healthcare and insurance less expensive for everyone.
We also have to get people back to working, saving, and investing again!
Apologies about the spelling of your name, Sandi…I’m afraid I was in a bit of a hurry near quittin time at work yesterday.