Tag Archives: Goldman Sachs Jan Hatzius Obamacare caused few hundred thousand workers hours cut

Goldman Sachs Jan Hatzius Obamacare caused few hundred thousand workers hours cut, Disincentives for full time employment, Involuntary part time employment, White Americans decimated under Obama, Citizen Wells Hatzius jobs debate

Goldman Sachs Jan Hatzius Obamacare caused few hundred thousand workers hours cut, Disincentives for full time employment, Involuntary part time employment, White Americans decimated under Obama, Citizen Wells Hatzius jobs debate

“All of the employment gains among women since the recession hit in December 2007 have been taken by foreigners, even at a time when the numbers of U.S.-born women surged more than 600,000, according to new federal statistics.”…Washington Examiner August 7, 2015

“Nearly half of U.S. companies are reluctant to hire full-time employees because of the ACA. One in five firms indicates they are likely to hire fewer employees, and another one in 10 may lay off current employees in response to the law.

Other firms will shift toward part-time workers. More than 40 percent of CFOs say their companies will consider switching some jobs to less than 30 hours per week or targeting part-time workers for future employment.”…Duke University Fuqua School of Business December 11, 2013

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells


You remember Jan Hatzius and the jobs debate with Citizen Wells?

From Zero Hedge June 8, 2016.

“Goldman Crushes Democrat’s Dreams: Shows Obamacare Has Cost “A Few Hundred Thousand Jobs””

“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”.”


“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.”

Read more:


From Citizen Wells February 8, 2015.

“Goldman Sachs chief economist Jan Hatzius was interviewed on CNBC on Friday, February 6, 2015 after the January jobs report.

From Citizen Wells February 7, 2015.

From Zero Hedge February 6, 2015.

“Following the January jobs report, Goldman’s chief economist Jan Hatzius appeared on CNBC but instead of joining Steve Liesman in singing the praises of the “strong” the report (which apparently missed the memo about  the  crude collapse), he decided to do something totally different and instead emphasize the two series that none other than Zero Hedge has been emphasizing for years as the clearest indication of what is really happening with the US labor market: namely the recession-level civilian employment to population ratio and the paltry annual increase in average hourly earnings.

This is what Hatzius said (2:40 into the clip):

The employment to population ratio is still 4% below where it was in 2006. You can explain 2% of that with the aging of the population that still leaves quite a lot of room potentially, and the wage numbers are telling us we are just not that close, although we are getting closer.””

Read more:


I sent the following email to  Jan Hatzius.

I have not yet received a response.

I have a math, computer science & business background.
I am also one of the baby boomers.
You recently appeared on CNBC & stated:

The employment to population ratio is still 4% below where it was in 2006. You can explain 2% of that with the aging of the population that still leaves quite a lot of room potentially, and the wage numbers are telling us we are just not that close, although we are getting closer.”

Would you elaborate on:

“You can explain 2% of that with the aging of the population”

I am preparing an article

and want to be accurate.





Jan Hatzius did respond in less than 24 hours and we debated via email the validity of his statement:

“You can explain 2% of that with the aging of the population”

I will not present the entire exchange unless he requests it.

Here are our ending remarks.


“Thanks for your response.

I have no wish to be unkind to you.
However, I consider it a “sacred” duty to report the truth, facts.
For what it is worth, I have much German ancestry and was baptized and raised in the Lutheran Church.
I even worked as VP of Administration for a German company in the US circa 1983.

Apples and oranges.
The studies that you quote are projections done in 2006, not historical analysis.
I am not questioning the projections.
They are projections probably done by competent people using the best data available.
But they are projections, not history, done before probably the biggest anomaly in recorded US job history.

What we are addressing is simple.
The percent of people employed in 2006 vs now.
It does not matter what the mix of age groups employed is.
The problem is that there are not enough jobs now of the right type to give the same ratio as in 2006.
The problem is exacerbated by too many part time jobs which yield a result of too many people working multiple jobs.
Jan Hatzius:

“It is also true that there are not enough jobs. That’s why I said population aging accounts for 2 of the 4 percentage points of decline, not for the entire decline.
Best regards,

I would like to thank Jan Hatzius again. He did not have to respond.

I will leave it to the reader to decide who is right.

However, I found an article that may provide insight.

From Fortune November 6, 2012.

“Obama’s best friend at Goldman Sachs”

“To be sure, the German-born Hatzius hasn’t publicly stated that he supports the President. But his analysis, which is widely read in financial circles, has long jibed with the monetary and fiscal policies embraced by Democrats. In numerous notes published over the last few years, Hatzius has advocated stimulus spending and called for more quantitative easing, renouncing efforts to slash the deficit as premature.”

“Hatzius’ views have endeared him to the likes of liberal economist Paul Krugman, who has mentioned the Goldmanite nearly a dozen times in his New York Timesblog. Krugman has repeatedly referred to Hatzius’ group as “excellent,” calling the economist a “very calm, measured guy.” Back in 2009, he noted that Hatzius’ analysis was “spot on.””

“Hatzius sounded warnings about the housing market as early as 2005, when hepublished a report that asked “Bubble Trouble? Probably Yes.” In December of 2007, the economics writer Ben Stein criticized Hatzius in the New York Timesfor his gloomy prognostications, accusing the economist of fear-mongering in order to support Goldman’s bearish position.

Stein (incorrectly) mocked Hatzius for his view that the subprime mortgage crisis could spin out of control, hampering lending and slowing growth. “He is also postulating,” Stein wrote, “that lenders would have to retrench so deeply that lending would stall and growth would falter — an event that, again, has not happened on any scale in the postwar world, except when planned by the central bank.” (The piece, available here, is worth reading for its comedic value alone).”

Read more:


Further remarks from Citizen Wells:

“The reason that we have a 4 percent drop in the p of p, percent of population, working is that we do not enough jobs and
good full time jobs to maintain the same ratio.

The problem is exacerbated by too many part time jobs which yield a result of too many people working multiple jobs.

In 2006 we knew how the population was growing in terms of births and deaths with some anticipated immigration.

We did not know that the economy was going to collapse and that Obama would permit a flow of illegals to enter our country
and workforce. We also did not know that much of the job growth was going to be in part time and lower wage positions.

Regarding baby boomers and their impact on the job market.

This is being tossed about indiscriminately without justification.

We are on the leading edge of baby boomers reaching the traditional retirement age of 65.

Most of the baby boomers, which include those born up to 1964, have not reached retirement age yet.

Some people retire before that age but in recent years there has been a trend of retiring later.

Older workers generally have a more beneficial impact on the p of p ratio. Those retiring generally are retiring from a
full time job. Many of those who continue to work are in one part time job.

This yields a one to one scenario of one person to one job.

Younger people are having a more detrimental impact on the p of p ratio.

Because so many of the jobs being created are part time and/or lower wage jobs, the younger folks are working 2 or more of
these jobs.

This is hurting the ratio.

Also, unlike what you are being led to believe, there are far more of the younger people.

Let’s take the example of those turning 65 in 2014, born in 1949 and those turning 22 in 2014, born in 1992. I chose age
22 to account for college even though some of them entered the work force earlier, if they could find a job.

There were 3.56 million people born in the US in 1949. 85 % or 3.026 million are alive.

There were 4.08 million people born in 1992. Probably at least 4 million still alive.

Let’s assume that all of the people who turned 65 retired.

That is still a net gain of about a million in the workforce.

I mentioned above that in 2006 we did not know that Obama would allow so many illegal immigrants into the US.

Recently I reported about the even bigger drop in the p of p ratio in NC.

From Citizen Wells February 3, 2015.

“The plummet of the labor force participation rate in NC, other states and the US is big news and should be more widely

The percentage of the population working is also important and in some ways more significant.

Since the big news today was the lowest so called initial claims number in 15 years let’s go back to January 2000 and
compare the employment to population percent from then to now.

Jan 2000 64.6

Dec 2014 59.2

That’s a plummet of 5.4 percent!

Jan 2000 65.1

Dec 2014 56.5

That’s a plummet of 8.6 percent !!!”


From the Center for Immigration Studies August 2014.

“An analysis of government data by the Center for Immigration Studies shows that, since 2000, all of the net increase in the number of working-age (16 to 65) people holding a job in North Carolina has gone to immigrants (legal and illegal).
This is the case even though the native-born accounted for 61 percent of growth in the state’s total working-age population.”

Read more:


In conclusion, the answer is simple.

We do not have enough good jobs to maintain the same ratio of people working that we had in 2006.”