Government-provided catastrophic healthcare?

May 7, 2014 1:21:54 GMT pjohns1873 said:

I am simply not an egalitarian--either in pure theory or in practice.  
  
And no, I do not believe that capitalism is "perfect"; but merely that it is the finest economic system yet devised by humankind.  And I surely do not believe that it should be modified by superimposing upon it statist policies. 

The definition of the word "egalitarian" represents a double-edged sword.

dictionary.reference.com/browse/egalitarian

The "equality of all people" when it relates to "equality of opportunity" is something I fully endorse but "equality of outcome" is something I don't endorse. Should all people be entitled to "equality of opportunity" related to "political, economic, or social life" in America? I would say yes and that is one side of the sword when the word "egalitarian" is used. The other side of the sword is when the word is used to embrace a belief in "equality of outcome" and that is something I oppose.

I'm a laissez faire capitalist and laissez faire does not imply a lack of regulation related to enterprise. It does related to a lack of regulation to determine economic outcomes of enterprise in the economy. Laissez faire capitalism must address situations were inequities exist in enterprise where one enterprise would have an unfair advantage in the markets when compared to other enterprises and/or when the Rights of the Person are being violated in a "free market" economy.

For example OSHA regulations that protect the "person" from harm are justifiable and necessary under laissez faire capitalism. The "enterprise" does not have the "right" to endanger the worker with unsafe working conditions and regulations to prevent that are both justifiable and necessary.

We can also note that ensuring that capitalism "works" under the principles of laisse faire capitalism the "Laws of Contract" must be enforced. Under a contract the fundamental principle is that all "contracts are entered into voluntarily based upon a mutual benefit to each party and were coercion does not exist" but we find that coercion does exist in our economy today.

We no longer live in the "natural world" were all people had "equality of opportunity" to hunt, gather food and the necessities of life from nature. The "natural equality of the person" predates even the most fundamental aspects of economic exhange (commerce) that later evolved into "capitalism" as we know it today.

Today we live in an economic world where a person must "work or die" and capitalism is the most viable economic model we have. On that we both agree but, at least in my opinion, it still must be based upon the philosophy of laissez faire capitalism. The problem today is that we have a huge unemployment problem that introduces coercion where a person that must "work or die" is forced to accept employment at below the levels of compensation (wages and benefits) that are necessary for survival in a modern economy. The employer-employee relationship is a "contract" and force/coercion invalidates a contract. Laissez faire capitalism is required to enforce contract law and regulations that prevent or mitigate the element of "force/coercion" related to the employment contract are both necessary and required under laissez faire capitalism.

Underpayments for labor (i.e. compensation in wages/benefits below the cost of survival) that can occur because of "market pressure" violate contract law and are an act of aggression by the employer against the employee.

We can note that a regulation that was to require all enterprises to provide "health care benefits" does not determine economic outcomes because it is a universal requirement for all enteprises and does not favor one enterprise over another.

Statism relates to the "government" being responsible for the person but regulation of enterprise is not statism. The government providing catstrophic healthcare is "statism" but regulation requiring all enterprises to provide healthcare benefits is not "statism" and is supported based upon the principles of laisse faire capitalism as it addresses "coercion" in the employment contract where the person does not receive enough in compensation (wages/benefits) to provide for this necessity of life in a modern ecomony.      

May 7, 2014 23:14:16 GMT pjohns1873 said:

The definition of "egalitarian" to which I am referring, of course, is that of a belief in the state's ensuring equal outcomes; and you appear to agree with me that this is not a good thing.

Your belief, however, that it is a violation of "contract law" to offer a low-skill potential employee less than a living wage is something with which I firmly disagree.  (Again, let this low-skill person upgrade his or her skillset; and then agree to work only for that potential employer who would offer a fairly generous benefits package.) 

Yes, we do agree that "equality of outcome" is the wrong side of the "egalitarian" sword.

The law of supply and demand, when applied to "labor" which is not a requirement of capitalism (capitalism only requires that the law of supply and demand apply to voluntary commerce and not labor) introduces "coercion" as it forces the person to become a party to a contract because they have to and not because they want to.

The person must work so they don't have the option of not working and they are therefore can be required to accept the wages offered even though they cannot survive on the wages (compensation). No one accepts a job below their cost of living voluntarily. They accept the job because they have to work to survive even temporarily. In short, for the worker, it's better to delay starving to death until next year than it is to starve to death next week by refusing the wages.

The fact that the person is forced by the Law of Supply and Demand to work for wages below their cost of living is "coercion" violates the law of contract.

Please note that this "coercion" does not exist for enterprise. No enterprise is required to operate at a loss based upon the Law of Supply and demand because the enterprise can simply stop existing. A person cannot simply stop existing like an enterprise.

Of note the Law of Supply and Demand when applied to labor works just fine once there is a "profit" for the worker because the person can voluntarily negotiate the amount of "profit" they will obtain from their employment. It only fails when it forces a person to "operate at a loss" where they cannot sustain themselves based upon the compensation for their labor.

May 8, 2014 23:44:34 GMT pjohns1873 said:

In none of this did you ever address the fundamental issue, viz.:  It would be a very good idea for each individual working-age person to upgrade his or her skillset, so as to be able to demand a certain level of compensation--or else walk.

You appear to believe that the only realistic alternatives are to postpone "starving to death" by accepting inadequate compensation--or else starve now.  

And what court, to your knowledge, has ever ruled that it amounts to illegal "coercion" to offer a prospective employee less than "a living wage"?

Capitalism is based upon an equalibrium between supply and demand but when tens of millions of people are unemployed that equalibrium does not exist and the "skillset" of the person becomes irrelevant. A person's compensation is not based upon their "skills and knowledge" but instead is based upon the demand or lack of demand for those skills and knowledge. Today there are literally millions of highly skilled and knowledgeable people that can't get a job at any wage. They have the "skillsets" you refer to and it won't get them a job.

Would you advocate a "payscale" based upon the "skillset" of the person established by law? A person that was providing a benefit to the enterprise that warranted $60/hr just seven years ago is still providing the same benefit to the enterprise today but is probably only being paid $40/hr. If their "labor" was worth $60/hr in the past then it is still worth $60/hr today isn't it? The technical engineering pay in aerospace has dropped by 1/3rd or more since 2007 but the workers are still providing the identical benefit to the enterprise and the costs of a new jet airliner have not diminished one dime between then and now.  

No, I have read of such a decision where the courts ruled that coercion exists but that doesn't imply that it doesn't exist.  

May 10, 2014 2:11:33 GMT pjohns1873 said:

As you are probably aware, I certainly would not advocate a government-mandated payscale. 

A "government-mandated payscale" isn't something I'm much of an advocate for either but I do understand one simple fact. Capitalism, while being the most logical economic systems, if far from being perfect. It has it's problems and one of those is when the "workers" don't receive enough in compensation (wages/benefits) to survive on as that imposes a moral obligation upon society to provide assistance to them. We can't simply let people go hungry or be forced out into the streets or to go without necessary health care services.

I've often tried to promote "market solutions" to address the problems with capitalism. For example I put forward the simple proposition that larger employers survey their employees about whether they required "assistance from the government" (e.g. SNAP, housing, or healthcare) and then post the "statistical" information by their front door. It didn't require the enterprise to pay more nor did it impose any significant cost on the enterprise but it would provide information to their customers. Perhaps a customer that read that 1/2 of the employees required government assistance they might choose to not shop at that enterprise. That could put "market pressure" on the enterprise to increase compensation. It was about being an "informed comsumer" when shopping and nothing more. Many objected to "informing the consumer" based upon my proposition where the consumers could put pressure on the enterprise to increase compensation for their employees.

In the end though we need to understand that Capitalism is not without it's flaws and our government has an obligation to address those flaws. It often does such as prohibiting unfair business practices and monopolies (or most privage monopolies) under the law.

If we have the problem of "underpayments for labor" causing taxation and spending to provide for the worker's basic necessities of survival, and we do have the problem, isn't that something our government needs to address? Or should we just keep taxing and spending to address this failure of capitalism?     

May 11, 2014 0:12:50 GMT pjohns1873 said:

The fundamental problem with society's forcing employers to assume added costs--whether it is through a substantial raise in the minimum wage, or through mandated healthcare, or anything else--is that it will necessarily involve either (1) an increase in retail prices; (2) the laying off of current employees; (3) the diminishing of current employees' hours; (4) the future hiring of fewer employees; or (5) any combination thereof.

There simply is no such thing as a free lunch--as much as some would prefer to believe otherwise.

And these workers could demand a job that supplies these "basic necessities"--and more--if they were to upgrade their respective skillsets.  (I simply do not believe that their merely having a pulse entitles them, automatically, to "a living wage."   

There is a fundamental flaw with arguments 2, 3 and four. The number of employees and the hours they work are driven by the necessity for the work to be done. Let's take a simple example of "janitorial" services that tends to be a low paying job. If a large company like Walmart or Costco required 10,000 hours worth of "janitorial work" to be done weekly it must have the man-power to do that work. It can't just decide to not clean the floors or bathrooms. No enterprise logically hires people to do nothing but instead hires people to perform necessary work for the enterprise. There can be considerations related to whether it's performed by more part-time workers or fewer full-time workers but the number of manhours doesn't actually change.

The necessity for the work being done drives the employment and not the cost of the labor required to do the work.  

As could be noted if there is a "healthcare" mandate then if the "mandate" distinguishes between part-time and full-time employees it could provide a "business" reason establishing a preference for part-time or full-time employees. This exists under "Obamacare" as I understand it but that can be avoided. The differentiating between part-time and full-time employees and the 50 employee limits of "Obamacare" are problematic and I condemn those provisions which is why my "proposal" doesn't include this discriminatory criteria.

 Yes, providing more in compensation in wages/benefits can increase the cost to the consumer but as noted in using Walmart as an example (just because it represents a large pool of low paying jobs) the cost increases to the consumers are insignificant. I increased "compensation" for labor by over 20% but it only reflected about a 1% change in the costs of the goods being sold.  

There is one point where you are 100% correct:

"There simply is no such thing as a free lunch--as much as some would prefer to believe otherwise."

That is absolutely correct. There are no "free lunches" so either the employers can provide for all of the necessities of life or the taxpayer is required to make up the difference.  If it costs a person $100 to live then either the employer can pay it or the employer can pay less (e.g. $80) and the taxpayer has to make up the difference (e.g. $20). There are no "freebies" when it comes to people surviving. People that say the "employers shouldn't be paying for the minimal costs of survival of the employee" are merely advocates of "taxpayer funded government welfare" that is necessary to make up the shortfall.

As you know I'm a libertarian and I don't like government mandates. Instead I prefer "personal responsibility" but when people are irresponsible sometimes the government needs to step in. If employers assumed "responsibility" then they would voluntarily be providing adequate compensation to their employees. They can do this and still earn a profit. The problem is that the employers are not being responsible voluntarily and many tens of millions of workers in America don't receive enough in compensation (wages/benefits) to be able to survice and that forces this obligation on the taxpayer. We can't let people starve, be forced to live on the streets, or go without fundamental health care unless we choose to be a immoral society.

There are no "free lunches" so the question for us is who's going to pick up the tab for lunch?  

May 11, 2014 23:38:50 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Although I do not know if your assertions are correct as regarding the (almost negligible) price increases necessary for Walmart, if it should take on additional costs, the fact remains that--even if this is entirely true--that what is the case for a multinational behemoth may not necessarily be true for all other retailers, including mom-and-pop stores (what few remain), small regional chains, and larger national chains.

Your basic assumption appears to be that employers' "responsibility" means their obligation to pay a living wage.  And here is where we fundamentally disagree.

What I found rather interesting was that the vast majority of employment in the United States is by small business and not large corporations so the comment about "few remaining mom-and-pop stores" is actually erroneous. As a small business owner (my wife has been a self-employed small business owner for decades but I run the financial affairs) accomodating the costs of labor at these lower compensation levels does not in anyway affect the profitability of the enterprise. All it requires is a good business plan. An enterprise adds labor when the business requires it to increase profitability and the costs of the labor are simply a component in the calculations for profitability.

Here's an example of a simply summary of a business plan that addresses labor costs.

For example I'm in the process of creating a new start-up company with a partner to build rigid chopper frames for the new Harley-Davidson Street 500 and Street 750 motorcycles that will go on sale in the US next month. Initially, after prototype development is complete, we're going to sub-contract all of the work out (i.e. tube bending, machining, fitting, welding, & finishing) but we do want to move that work in-house as soon as sales allow it. The basic wage/benefit package will cost us $25/hr and we will need to be selling 8 frames/month/employee to cover wages, material costs, supplies overhead, and profits (all itemized in the business plan). We'll need a minimum of 3 employees to move the work in-house so we need to generate sales of at least 24 frames/month to transition from sub-contracted work to in-house production. Three employee will actually be able to produce up to 40 frames per month which will provide the income from sales to add more employees in the future and expand the product line generating more sales and that cycle continues indefinately growing the business in the future.  

On a "living wage".....

One thing I don't know is if the current wages do or don't provide a "living wage" because our tax codes impose the highest tax burden relative to income on the lowest income workers. Their gross income, which is what the employers pay, might be more that adequate but their disposable income because of taxation obviously isn't.

What we do know is that if it costs $100 to survive that someone has to provide that $100 because there are no "free lunches" in society. If the employer doesn't provide it, or if the employer does provide it but the government takes part of it away with taxation, then then someone has to make up the short-fall. We know that "private charities" can't make upon the shortfall so government has to with tax and spend welfare programs.

There is no such thing as a "Free Lunch" and there is a bottom line when it comes to the minimum costs for a person to live.

May 13, 2014 0:33:55 GMT pjohns1873 said:

I am assuming that those whom you will be employing at a combined rate of $25 per hour (wages plus benefits) are not unskilled workers. 

On a more abstract level--I am not speaking, here, of your nascent company, specifically--it is certainly fair (and reasonable) for businesspeople to attempt more than just being (marginally) "profitab[le]."  Rather, most would prefer to generate as large of a profit as possible.  Capitalism, just by definition, is not an exercise in altruism. 

And even after taxes, if the amount of net compensation is less than "a living wage," I do not see that as a problem for society to address.      

Bad assumption because we plan on training "unskilled" labor generally. The only position that initially requires skill (and which will pay more for) is the certified welder position. I can actually do the welding at that quality level required but I don't have the "certification" so we will hire someone that does. That is only to fill the initial welding position requirement as we will later train "unskilled" employees to become certified welders.

I really don't know where this idea of "generate as large of a profit as possible" entered the economic philosophy of "capitalism" because it is not something I've ever read in studying capitalism. That is a statement that "Greed is Good" but one of the greatest problems with capitalism is greed. Ideally capitalism relates to a mutually beneficial relationship between owners of enterprise, the workers of enterprise, and the customers of enterprise.

"Greed" does not exist in the idealistic model of capitalism. The economic model must result in mutually beneficial relationships between all involved or it fails as a viable economic model.