Goldman Crushes Democrat's Dreams: Shows Obamacare Has Cost "A Few Hundred Thousand Jobs"

Tyler Durden's picture

We suspect Lloyd Blankfein will be receiving a call from The White House (or Treasury) very soon as Goldman Sachs' economists did the unthinkable in the age of political correctness - while investigating the state of under-employment in America, the smartest people in the room found that ObamaCare has led to a rise in involuntary part-time employment, estimating that "a few hundred thousand workers" have been forced to cut hours and has "created disincentives for full-time employment."

Goldman's Jan Hatzius explains that they find mixed evidence to support the theory that the employer mandate under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has contributed to the elevated level of involuntary part-time work.

Our estimates of the effect by industry do show signs of an effect, particularly among the sectors that had the greatest gaps in required health insurance coverage prior to implementation of the mandate, but the relationship is weak.


It is possible that the level of involuntary part-time workers could be a few hundred thousand higher than it would be otherwise as a result of the mandate, which is a small share of the 6.4 million workers employed part-time involuntarily, but potentially a much larger share of the “underemployment gap”.

Their research into the relative slack in the labor force notes that...

The share of workers who would like to work full-time but are only able to find part-time work for economic reasons has declined much more slowly than the unemployment rate, raising the possibility that structural factors could be keeping the involuntary part-time rate elevated (Exhibit 1). If true, this would suggest that there is currently even less slack remaining in the labor market than we have assumed.



One potential explanation of the structural rise in the ratio of share of part-time to full-time employment is the employer mandate in the Affordable Care Act (ACA).


In principle, the ACA should increase part-time employment as a share of total employment, from both the demand and supply side.


  • On the demand side, some employers that do not offer health insurance coverage for full-time employees may seek to avoid penalties by relying on part-time labor instead.
  • On the supply side, the ACA potentially creates disincentives for full-time employment, as it increases the implicit tax on marginal low- and middle- income earnings by reducing subsidies as incomes rise. It also loosens the link between employment and health insurance coverage - coverage can now be purchased more easily away from one’s employer - which may allow some who previously worked full-time for the offered health benefits to now work part-time instead. However, these supply-side effects should not be contributing to the elevated level of involuntary part-time work.

As Goldman concludes...

Overall we believe that the evidence suggests that the ACA has at least modestly elevated involuntary part-time employment.


While the effect is hard to quantify given the apparently loose relationship just noted, we would estimate that a few hundred thousand workers might be working part-time involuntarily as a result of the ACA. We reach this estimate by multiplying the difference between the actual and estimated involuntary part-time workers in the five sectors most affected by the ACA mandate by total employment in those sectors. We can reach a similar estimate by dividing the sectors into two groups weighted equally by total employment, and subtracting the difference between actual and estimated involuntary part-time employment in the less-affected group by the difference in the more affected group. These admittedly rough measures fall in the middle of the few academic studies on the topic, and suggest that while the effect of the ACA employer mandate is small compared to the total number of the 6.4 million workers employed part-time for economic reasons, it could constitute a more significant share of the estimated remaining “underemployment gap.”

There goes Blankfein's invite to Hillary's inauguration.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
HRH of Aquitaine's picture
HRH of Aquitaine (not verified) Jun 8, 2016 9:24 PM

Another "no shit Sherlock" moment. It didn't take a fucking genius to predict this as the outcome. I suppose we should appreciate the fact G. Sucks is trying to tell the truth.

Ms. Erable's picture

I can imagine how such a phone conversation would go:


Kenyan Pole Smoker (KPS): Um, excuse me, Mr. Blankfein, but you told me to say that we'd have new jerbs with my health bill.

Blankfein, Son of Satan (SoS): Shut up, bitch, or do you want me to release Michael - er, excuse me, Michelle's high school yearbook photos?

KPS: Yes, Mr. Blankfein. but...

SoS: I said SHUT UP, bitch. Don't call me again. I call YOU, jugears, and YOU do what I say, WHEN I say. Got it?

KPS: Yes, Mr. Blankfein. but...


philipat's picture

It was designed to fail. Next step, single payer. Because its only fair...


Part of the greater Cloward-Piven Progressive strategy.

WayPastCaring's picture

I just wanted to say that if Obama or his fat b1tch wife is reading this article and comments: I hope you go fck yourselves for what you've done in this country, you traitorous, malodorus heaps of excrement. I know people personally who are suffering from the effects of Obamacare and I truly hope both of you leeching scumbags engage the care of a doctor who has lost a loved one due to your machinations in the health care system.
This is apropos and is a direct lift from Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" - may you meet such a doctor, you unthinkably miserable human dung heaps:

“I quit when medicine was placed under State control, some years ago,” said Dr. Hendricks. “Do you know what it takes to perform a brain operation? Do you know the kind of skill it demands, and the years of passionate, merciless, excruciating devotion that go to acquire that skill? That was what I would not place at the disposal of men whose sole qualification to rule me was their capacity to spout the fraudulent generalities that got them elected to the privilege of enforcing their wishes at the point of a gun. I would not let them dictate the purpose for which my years of study had been spent, or the conditions of my work, or my choice of patients, or the amount of my reward. I observed that in all the discussions that preceded the enslavement of medicine, men discussed everything—except the desires of the doctors. Men considered only the ‘welfare’ of the patients, with no thought for those who were to provide it. That a doctor should have any right, desire, or choice in the matter, was regarded as irrelevant selfishness; his is not to choose, they said, only ‘to serve.’ That a man who’s willing to work under compulsion is too dangerous a brute to entrust with a job in the stockyards—never occurred to those who proposed to help the sick by making life impossible for the healthy.”


“I have often wondered at the smugness with which people assert their right to enslave me, to control my work, to force my will, to violate my conscience, to stifle my mind—yet what is it that they expect to depend on when they lie on an operating table under my hands? Their moral code has taught them to believe that it is safe to rely on the virtue of their victims. Well, that is the virtue I have withdrawn. Let them discover the kind of doctors that their system will now produce. Let them discover, in their operating rooms and hospital wards that it is not safe to place their lives in the hands of a man whose life they have throttled. It is not safe if he is the sort of many who resents it—and still less safe if he is the sort who doesn’t.”


Arnold's picture

Second hand research always trumps first hand experience, I guess.

Crusader75's picture

Who cares whether it cost jobs, it wasn't a jobs bill. Its purpose was to provide tens of millions of Americans with health insurance, and it succeeded. Before Romneycare (oops, I mean Obamacare) the number of uninsured Americans was an international disgrace.

drchris's picture

Wouldn't you care if you actually wanted it to be sustainable? 

Powerslaved's picture

The amount of uninsured Americans is still the same if not higher. All Obamacare did was provide insurance for those who couldn't afford it by taking it away from those who could.

Everybodys All American's picture

Just another Marxist redistribution plan.

espirit's picture

You're either a fucking internet troll, an idiot, or have forgotten the /sarc/ tag.

Which is it?

BTW- DumboCare only provided access to the uninsurable via subsidies.

philipat's picture

And made Health insurance LESS affordable to the middle class. Net result: there are now MORE "folks" without insurance than before ACA. It's just a different group uninsured now. The poor/chronically ill/unemployed (Mostly Democratic voters) are now covered and the middle class.....less so.

vollderlerby's picture

What went wrong was that people can stay uninsured to void paying any premiums while they're healthy.  The fines they pay are much smaller than the premiums they avoid.  Then they get sick and the same day they're on the web site signing up. That's the exact opposite of what insurance is supposed to do if you believe in the concept.

philipat's picture

Even signing up upon getting sick (Which, yes, is part of the problem with ACA) doesn't necessarily help unless it is a catastophic condition because the Obamacare plans often have very high deductibles of around $5K. So you would be paying the premium and not necessarily getting anything back?

philipat's picture

And of course, the ACA suffers from what is known as "Adverse selection", which means that the old, chronically sick and those with pre-existing conditions, are the first to sign up. The young prefer to pay the fine and move on. The problem with this is that the costs of providing care to those enrolled is very high, which is, amongst other reasons, is why premia are increasing so much. This was perfectly predictable in advance.

Ballin D's picture

What if we don't want those tens of millions alive and kicking a single day more than they earn themselves?

PGR88's picture



You're full of shit - my insurance was cancelled twice due to Obamacare, once when it phased in, and a year later when NY's Health Republic went bankrupt.  Each time, it cost my family a few thousand dollars more for coverage - and each time, the hacks at HHS counted me as another happy citizen having "found" health-care thanks to ACA.   Cut your crap, Gruber.

Chuck Walla's picture

Now, if the middle class could only afford to use Ocare. But having insurance isn't quite the same as obtaining affordable health care, now is it?


Arnold's picture



Many facilities are not accepting ACA as an in network Plan.

Surprise, surprise, surprise.

RichardParker's picture

Its purpose was to provide tens of millions of Americans with health insurance...

Obamacare was touted to the people as The Affordable CARE Act, not the Affordable Insurance Act.  It has done NEITHER. 



It was a play for power, nothing more.

Sweet Cheeks's picture

Unless you work for the government, you can not afford Insurance.

Ink Pusher's picture

You got it Crusader. The truth rarely gets approval. The masses have already been infected with a particularly virulent strain of acute corporate sedition-itis.  

They started out with the affluenza virus and then crossed it with the DNA of a bottom feeding lobbyist partisan ambulance chaser.

Those of us who are mutations have the ability to discern between fantasy and reality ,thankfully  immune to the effects and remain unaffected by the virus. We have now confirmed that the spread of the virus is via mainstream media and other partisan propaganda centers cross the entire country....There is little hope for a cure. 

Oldwood's picture

I only wish that our government could provide a way for all those who yearn to have this progressive utopia of unlimited "rights" to contribute THEIR assets and labors to that end rather than force others to contribute against their will. Our world should reflect those living in it, not the dreams of a few deluded but powerful souls. So many lives have been lost or destroyed by this mess yet those pushing it's agenda will NEVER take responsibility for it regardless of how much is predicted nor shown historically demonstrated. Utopia is hard work but the path surely can be paved with enough bones and carcasses of its detractors.

fxrxexexdxoxmx's picture

Who cares if citizens who once had a job no longer have job as long as non-citizens have access to a subsidy (aka tax revenue) based health care program. BTW, that 30 million number of not insured; is this based on research or just another lie that Obama used? Much like the $2500.00  a year and you can keep your doctor?

The only  fucking disgraceful person is Obama who exempted over 1600 groups and Federal Gov. employees from participation in the ACA.  But what else would you expect from a racist scumbag motherfucker like him?He is a hatefull, stuttering, half a cracker.

Barrack Hussein Obama, aka Frank Marshal Davis biological offspring, has proven that voting for a person based upon skin color is ignorant. And any person who voted for him because he was black, as countless videos of African Americans voiced was their primary reason they were voting, are nothing but racist KKK wannabees and should be treated as such.

Barrack Obama has destroyed for a generation the possibility of a competent African American being elected POTUS.

HalinCA's picture

I see the effects of this daily in my healthcare job. You'd be amazed how many  people on Obamacare are very unhealthy or obsese.  I'd say anyone getting subsidized healthcare insurance need to meet minimum healthcare standards, like:

- no smoking

- body fat index within healthy range

- no drugs



jakesdad's picture

I gather the statute of limitations has run out?

Shpedly's picture

Obamacare is the quintessntial quicksand. There will never be getting out of it. 

Snípéir_Ag_Obair's picture

Lost in all this socialism sucks stuff is the amazing extra-Constitutional statism of it all.

Hey listen, I don't care who you are or where you're from, if you're living in America, you should, if you look into the matter, be absolutely foaming in the mouth in rage over how bad Pharma companies are fucking you in the ass over and over..

Socialism sucks, fair enough, but that doesnt mean corporations act in your interest. They do not, but you do need medicine - and the margins on some of these drugs shock the conscience.

Self interest is good. Greed is inherently bad, and at the margins tends toward the cruel and the criminal.

The whole thing needs to be torn down, and a genuine grass roots up market ought to be nurtured.

everyone 'should' have healthcare. The best way to do that, though, and some of you numbskulls just can't accept it, is sometimes, and in this case - BEST to keep government far, far away from it.

Why dont punk rock economists spend some time on the care and feeding of new organic markets?

Fidel Sarcastro's picture

A well thought out comment indeed.  Well done sir.

nmewn's picture

Dayum dims! When you've lost Goldman Sucks even! guess its time to recalibrate your "nuanced thinking" from GOVERNMENT FORCING the young & healthy to buy a product or service they don't want or need, from a PRIVATE CORPORATION to something more market driven without all the deep state IRS check boxes? 



Oh...WTF am I thinking?! You're all socialist worker party democrats now, without the promised jobz, so time to go full commie retard now huh? Amirite?



"The stupidity of the American voter." - Jonathan Gruber ;-)

espirit's picture

Save your text - GoomBa's already drank the TrollAid.

Oldwood's picture

Do you really think anyone will even mention this? How many devout libs would even read this. They operate on hope and emotion and would never let facts and data sway their perspectives.

CheapBastard's picture

Obamacare is just another screw job against the American middle class in a long series of screw jobs from the DC Establishment, esp "Botox" Pelosi, "Black-Eye" Reid and Soweto O'Bama and the "low Energy, Do-Nothing" Repugnicans who watched it from the sidelines and didn't do shit.


It was a "Win-Win-Win"; win for the Demobrats, win for the Republicans and a win for insurance companies [who are making record profits despite their allegation of losing money on Obamacare].


The Big Losers were the working American middle class.

Cheyenne's picture

Ummm, Blankfein's underlings in the White House are gonna express disapproval directly to the boss? That's the funniest thing I've read all week.

Yen Cross's picture

   jJ [dividend]over Squid x2   minus Non-GAAP and a neutron [ positron]  = BTFATH?

  Am I missing something?

espirit's picture

Yen -

In the alternate Matrix BTFATH = Ur/F'd squared.

Yen Cross's picture

  Thanks--- I think?


Duc888's picture



ACA is a tax.  The tax burden has cost jobs.

snakehead's picture

Creating a larger dependent underclass is an age-old strategy. They're probably popping bottles of Dom at the White House.

G-R-U-N-T's picture

Goldman Scrotum, please, tell us something we didn't already know! Next up Pension collapse!

Everybodys All American's picture

The Marxist con man Obama will not be happy.

Artemis Rand's picture

I politefully disagree. The HNIC is happy any time he can fuck over white America.

espirit's picture

Damage Control Hedge.

"I Told You So."

moneybots's picture

ObamaCare has led to a rise in involuntary part-time employment, estimating that "a few hundred thousand workers" have been forced to cut hours and has "created disincentives for full-time employment."


Democrats are fond of proclaiming that if you vote republican, you are voting against your own self interest. Actually, that applies to voting for democrats, as well.

Unemployed at $15 an hour is against one's self interest.

robnume's picture

It was meant to kill jobs. As Lambert Strether at Naked Capitalism points out, neoliberalism rule no. 2: now go away and die.

DaveA's picture

The Democrat's dream is doing just fine. Democrats totally don't care if people can afford health care. They care that (a) spineless Republicans be shamed into accepting the latest Democratic abomination (gay marriage, transexuality, Obamacare) as water under the bridge, and (b) enough third-world voters be brought into the country or bred in the ghettos to keep the Democrats in power forever.

Women with husbands and children with fathers vote Republican. Therefore the Democratic dream is that no woman have a husband, and no child have a father.

Redheart's picture

gLObaL wARmInG is the greatest threat we face.

Sweet Cheeks's picture

The greatest real threat we face is an EMP. Global warming is not even settled science.

Singelguy's picture

Global warming is the greatest FARCE we face. Fxed it for you.

yogibear's picture

The squid has no friends when it comes to money.

If the squid could make a few hundred million, there are no rules or friends.