If the government is going to make it costlier to hire people, then businesses are going to hire fewer people. Simple economics, right?
An Indiana businessman told lawmakers Wednesday he has purposely kept his companies small to avoid having the number of workers that would require him to provide health insurance under the Affordable Care Act.
“We have felt the profound imposition of the Affordable Care Act or, as it is known among many small-business entrepreneurs, the Unaffordable Care Act,” said Joe Sergio, president of The Sergio Corp., a South Bend parent company of a disaster restoration business and an industrial cleaning company. “Obamacare punishes employment growth, and the incentive is to not grow.”
Just sayin'.
Supporters of government intrusion always like to talk about the winners and pretend there are no losers. Yes, raising the minumum wage makes it more expensive to hire workers, But, hey, that won't cause layoffs or make the cost of my hamburger go up. Come on, that's just silly, conservative fear-mongering.
Later on in the story, there is this:
Casey Mulligan, an economics professor at the University of Chicago, testified that the law’s income-based insurance subsidies for people not offered coverage by their employer is a disincentive for people to work and earn more than the maximum allowed for receiving a subsidy.
“Fundamentally, when you’re giving stuff to people when they don’t work and earn, you’re going to have a disincentive,” he said.
Mulligan estimated the law will reduce weekly employment and aggregate work hours by 3 percent.
Maloney asked him whether he would consider that to be the “economic ruin” that critics of the law predicted.
“I don’t think the word ‘ruin’ applies to that,” he replied.
Hey, it's not quite the diaster that was predicted. Heck of a recommendation. "Not an economic ruin" is not a synonym for "successful government program."
