They don’t want to work. They want to live off of your work.
That I know of, Nancy Pelosi was the first to show that Obamacare would lower the pressures of having to support yourself and make clear “the government” would take care of everything. It would allow you to pursue your “passion” whether or not that feeds the bulldog.
In other words, let someone else pay. Clearly, what the country needs are more artists free to pursue their passion without the encumbrance of responsibility:
The CBO has determined that Obamacare will result in 2.5 fewer jobs over the next decade- because it frees people from the need to work.
Obamacare will reduce American workforce participation by the equivalent of 2 million full-time jobs in 2017, according to a new report by the Congressional Budget Office. Work hours would be reduced by the equivalent of 2.5 million jobs in 2024, a tripling of the previous estimates.
If you believe this report — and I’m not sure why we pay this much attention to CBO projections — you can then believe that Obamacare discourages work, pushes people out of the labor market and, consequently, leads to fewer people having jobs. Certainly, it is well within the parameters of political rhetoric for the opposition to assert that the CBO has found Obamacare is “costing” or “killing” American jobs. It is no more a “lie” to say so than it is to claim Mitt Romney was “shipping jobs overseas” or hear an administration assert that it “created jobs” — or any of the other countless shorthand we use for economic consequences in political debate.
But the only way to blunt the negative force of the CBO findings was to deflect from the numbers and gin up a controversy over semantics. And the synchronicity and speed in which Left punditry accomplished this task was pretty extraordinary. No, absolutely false, the term “killing jobs” implies that the problem is on the labor demand side, but the CBO, as any honest person can see, is talking about the labor supply side. So really, “jobs” aren’t being lost, people just don’t want to work.
Benjamin Hunnicut, a professor of leisure Studies at the University of Iowa, says
Work is now viewed as an economic end in itself rather than a means to better purposes. Work for more work has become the organizing principle of society, embodied in public policy and in the politician’s mantra: JOBS, JOBS, JOBS. The best explanation for the advent of work without end, I now believe, is a failure of imagination. We’ve forgotten that the purpose of life is to be happy, and to pass that happiness on to future generations—not simply to keep acquiring more stuff.
Professor of Leisure Studies. That’s got to be the best job anywhere. You get to talk up leisure all day all the while being supported by taxpayers.
Chalk up the perfessor as one more who believes that there is a money machine that sprouts hundred dollar bills when fertilized with unicorn pee. “The government” is something “over there.” Hunnicut’s check appears out of nowhere, so all money must appear out of nowhere, right?
At the NY Post Michale Goodwin notes the lamentable view democrats take on work:
Yes, work itself has changed and many manufacturing and factory jobs have disappeared. Yet the most troubling change has nothing to do with the kind of work and everything to do with attitudes and values about work.
The stigma attached to getting something for nothing is being replaced by an endless demand for more free stuff. One party is stoking that demand as it moves from being the working-class party to the entitlement party.
That revelation counts as the silver lining of ObamaCare. We now have it straight from the White House and Congress that creating jobs is not really their goal. Instead, the president’s singular piece of legislation is a success because it helps people get healthcare while avoiding work.
The media sprang into action defending sloth From WaPo via Protein Wisdom
They quit their jobs, thanks to health-care law
Count Polly Lower among those who quit their jobs because of the health-care law. It happened in September, when her boss abruptly changed her job description. She went from doing payroll, which she liked, to working on her boss’s schedule, which she loathed. At another time, she might have had to grit her teeth and accept the new position because she needed the health benefits. But with the health-care law soon to take effect, she simply resigned — and hasn’t looked back. “It was wonderful. It was very freeing,” said Lower, 56, of Bourbon, Ind., who is now babysitting her 5-year-old granddaughter full time. With the help of federal subsidies that kicked in Jan. 1, she is paying less than $500 a month for health coverage for herself and her husband.
Count Polly as one more Obama supporter graduated from the University of Unicorn Government. Polly doesn’t understand what pays for “Federal subsidies”, but then neither do any Obama supporters. I’ll bet she’s going to be more than little surprised when she has to cough up the deductible and finds out her doctors aren’t covered.
Good benefits were a cornerstone of employment appeal. No longer. That means employers will have to find other ways to attract good people and most likely, higher wages. That might sound great at first, but it adds to the cost of business, particularly to small business, which is getting crushed by Obamacare right now.
On one of my trips to lecture in Norway I had dinner with a friend who ran a medical supply business and he was extolling their socialist structure (although he was definitely one of the “more equal” ones). I asked him what would happen if all of sudden everyone decided not work. He took on a confused look for a few seconds and then replied “Norwegians like to work.”
I came close to choking on my dinner and had to fight to squelch my laughter. It’s good to know Norwegians like to work. Obama voters certainly don’t. It’s much easier to vote for a living than it is to work for a living.