I have another explanation of why SOME of the fewer see the benefits of hard work, time spent in finding ingenious and novel solutions to our problems, or are driven by professional excellence ...It's not that fewer Americans are searching for work. There are, to put it simply, less of us who want to work and to produce, and even among those of us who still want to work and produce, many of us are choosing to work fewer hours and to produce less.
And the reason for this is simple: because of the generous federal entitlements provided in the new "Obamacare" law.
According to none other than the Congressional Budget Office, many of us have decided we no longer will have to work as much as we once did, given all the "assistance" we can get via Obamacare.
This is not just political "spin" or partisan punditry. It comes directly from Douglas Elmendorf, the Director of the non-partisan C.B.O., a federal agency within the legislative branch of our government that employs people to analyze government policies, and consider their impact on the federal budget, and on the economy. The C.B.O. likely produces some of the most objective, "fair," and non-politicized data that we receive from our government.
Speaking at a little-noted event at the University of Southern California's Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics, Mr. Elmendorf noted that, outside the healthcare sector of our economy, the greatest impact of the Obamacare agenda will be in the labor market. It was October 22nd, just days away from the big midterm election, and Elmendorf's presence at this conference, and his remarks at the conference, did not receive nearly the amount of press attention that they deserved.
Mr. Elmendorf stated that, in some cases, Americans will simply choose not to work, because their needs for healthcare will be provided by the enhanced Medicaid funding that is provided for in the Obamacare law. As Journalist Matt Cover noted at CNSNews.com (he was one of few journalists that actually reported on this event), this assessment of Obamacare by Mr. Elmendorf coincides with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's remarks last May. Back then, Speaker Pelosi insisted that Obamacare would allow "artists" to "quit their day job" and pursue their art, free from the constraints of having to provide for one's self, because the government would now take care of artists' healthcare needs.
6 comments:
If "why bother" is going John Galt, then I most certainly have gone John Galt.
I work, because I am the kind of person who will always work. I will not take money from the government EVER if I can help it.
But, I make 1/5th of what I used to make, and I really don't give a flying fuck.
I used to be in charge of bringing in the money that kept a company of 70 people afloat.
But, the business I was in was one of the hardest hit, and I left, rather than go through it again. I entered a new field, with a new attitude, and that is, I'm just going to have a good time, do the best I can, and not freaking care past that.
If that's John Galt, then I am he.
Pastorius,
You can apparently survive on making so much less income.
Others cannot -- and many of them have given up too. Take a look at the former steel mill towns in Pennsylvania and Ohio.
If a high percentage of Americans take government assistance, the tax burden on the rest of us will be massive -- and unsustainable for us.
Retirement + why bother + plus a high tolerance for low-cost living = Going John Galt around here. (I barely escaped the reportedly living hell that was Borders Books struggling to make it through the financial storm by tossing everything not nailed down overboard and lashing the crew for the slightest infraction.) Whatever my small collectibles and craft business bring in is gravy.
Same here - one way or the other.
Hey Barry, now you know what there is left when the name of the game is to 'spread it around'.
Excuse me, I have to go find another book to read instead of starting a new cardiovascular research application and go through all the new regs animal research now requires (it's like writing software for the ICU).
We are all so far gone we don't even HIT any stat.
How many others?
Having never read Ayn Rand, and not intending to spend my time with it, I never knew what you guys really meant by "going John Galt"
What do you know? I've already done it.
I always thought you meant quitting.
As far as I'm concerned, it simply wasn't worth the effort anymore.
I have another friend who is about to be offered a Corporate VP position. I congratulated him on it, and he said he wouldn't take the position. He said, "Because of all the regulations involved with doing business in California, IT'S AN IMPOSSIBLE JOB. I'd rather just stay in this position, and keep helping you guys."
I guess that's Going John Galt as well, in a way.
Galt ran around convincing people like Warren Buffet, Dean Kamen, and Watson and Crick to disappear and be short order cooks at diners, janitors and fishing guides until a critical mass of such producers went missing and society fell apart (after he had invented a motor which ran on static electricity garnered out of the atmosphere, and the unions wanted him to share the fiscal benefits of his work)
Of course leaving it ALL - that is an ideal... so I would say, putting it at 50-60%, setting it on cruise, and watching the sunset at the Hotel Del over a Margarita is GOING GALT in the real world.
Post a Comment