
People voluntarily leaving jobs at highest rate since 2009 downturn - e15ctr0n
http://www.jsonline.com/business/people-voluntarily-leaving-jobs-at-highest-rate-since-2009-downturn-b99303175z1-265866551.html
======
gress
The article assumes this is because of a greater sense of security in the
labor market, but they ignore the other possibility - nastier jobs that
promise less for the future.

~~~
pohl
...or the liberating effect of knowing you'll have healthcare coverage
wherever you go? (Chill with the downvotes, it's just a hypothesis.)

~~~
learc83
That's a very good point. I didn't really support Obamacare when it passed,
but if helps separates health insurance from employment it's probably a net
positive.

~~~
maheart
As a non-American, can you explain why you would not support Obamacare?

~~~
learc83
2 reasons.

Constitutional: If the government can force you to buy something from a
private company there's not really much left that it can't do. In fact this
was the argument the Supreme Court made when it refuted that governments
argument that the Affordable Care Act was justified by the commerce clause--
that such a broad interpretation of the commerce clause would essentially
grant the federal government unlimited power. However, the justification that
the Supreme Court actually went with, that the ACA was basically just a tax,
is a bit ridiculous because it has almost all of the same problems.

Basically the difference according to the supreme court is that congress
doesn't have the authority to make it illegal not to buy health insurance.
They can't throw you in jail for not buying health insurance. But they can tax
you for not paying health insurance and throw you in jail for refusing to pay
the tax. The end result is pretty similar.

Practical: This has more to do with the Affordable Care Act after the Supreme
Court made some alterations, rather than the bill that was passed. The
subsidies provided by the ACA are only for people making an income above some
multiple X of the poverty line, and below some multiple Y. People with very
low incomes were supposed to be covered by an expansion of medicaid, but the
Supreme Court ruled that congress can't force states to expand medicaid. So in
more than half the states people making just above a certain threshold get
essentially free healthcare, while people making below it get nothing. In
these states the ACA has done almost nothing to help the very poorest.

I would have honestly supported a single payer system and a universal (but
progressive) tax instead of this public private hybrid with punitive taxes.

However, i think removing the ability for insurance companies to charge based
on preexisting conditions, and the supplements provided for most middle class
people will go a long way towards decoupling employment and health insurance.
I generally support anything that will increase personal autonomy and allowing
more people to work for themselves is a great way to do that.

~~~
jared314
I do not understand your second reason.

> So in more than half the states people making just above a certain threshold
> get essentially free healthcare, while people making below it get nothing.
> In these states ACA has done almost nothing to help the very poorest.

The ACA, by itself, has done everything it could have to help the poorest,
within the options that would actually pass the US congress (2009-2010). The
Supreme Court said the ACA could not force the states to take the (federally
funded) Medicaid expansion, so the state governments used that choice as a
political party loyalty test. The state governments chose to refuse
preallocated federal money, to help the poor, to show their loyalty for the
next election cycle.

I too would have preferred a single payer system, but the ACA is what passed
and the state governments have made their choice.

~~~
learc83
>The Supreme Court said the ACA could not force the states to take the
(federally funded) Medicaid expansion

The medicaid expansion is only fully federally funded for the first 3 years.
It goes down to 90% by 2020 (Edit: I originally wrote 2014), and could very
easily be pushed below that later on--Republican governors used that as an
excuse not to expand.

I think they could have passed a bill that either allowed people making below
the poverty level to use the exchanges with subsidies or they could have fully
funded the medicaid expansion. I really don't think adding a small fractional
increase in total cost would have killed the bill.

~~~
jared314
> It goes down to 90% by 2014, and could very easily be pushed below that
> later on--Republican governors used that as an excuse not to expand.

It is phased down to 90% by 2020, and, in its current form, doesn't fall below
that. The phasing just starts in 2014.

~~~
learc83
Sorry that was a typo.

------
fsk
By itself, quit rate is a meaningless statistic.

They should lump it into two groups.

1\. People who quit and find a new job within 1-2 months.

2\. People who quit and don't find a new job within 1-2 months.

Then, you can find out what % of people are quitting because they found a
better job. It's even better if you can split (1) up into people who quit for
a higher-paying job.

------
heydenberk
Is this adjusted to account for people who age out of the workforce?
Presumably, as baby boomers reach retirement age, more people will exit the
workforce than enter it, even in good times.

EDIT: Yes, this is among working-age people. But still, I'd assume early
retirement would increase the numbers as baby boomers get older.

~~~
jbigelow76

        >Presumably, as baby boomers reach retirement age, more people will exit the workforce than enter it, even in good times
    

That maybe offset by boomers working past traditional retirement age as
pensions go broke, they live longer meaning nest eggs need to go further, and
retirement accounts make up lost ground from the '08 recession.

------
robogrowth
A .2% yoy change is a sign of growing confidence lol..

~~~
steveax
It's a 10% shift in the rate (and nearly 50% higher than the low point), so
yes, it is significant.

