|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 15, 2014 1:04:28 GMT
The assertion that the "Republican" position is either not to get sick, or else to die quickly, is a Democratic talking point. It is unworthy of a serious person (which I certainly regard you as being); and much more appropriate to unabashed political hacks. Your reference to "working poverty" necessarily implies a preference for a living-wage solution. And here is where we differ. (I see it as a matter of individual responsibility for each person to upgrade his or her skillset so as to be able to make demands upon the prospective employer, rather than having to view each proposal on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. You appear, on the other hand, to view individual Americans as mere pawns, vulnerable to the whims of larger forces.)
The fact is that we do have a serious problem with the "working poor" and that doesn't impy anything except there is a problem with capitalism. The "living wage" is a proposal by Democrats to address the problem. You should be aware by now that my proposals have focused on taxation instead because a person lives off of their "disposable income" and taxation on the bottom 50% of households that have the highest tax burden relative to income is where I see a significant problem. Republican proposals are all about the owners of business making more money but that doesn't translate into the "working poor" earning more money.
The problem of the "working poor" exists and is a serious problem with capitalism in the United States.
Democrats propose a "living wage" to address it.
I've proposed "tax reform" to address it.
Republicans propose funneling more money to the wealthy that don't need the money and which does nothing to help the "working poor" in America.
What is your proposal to address the problem?
My own proposal (as I have previously indicated, on more than occasion) is for each person to take individual responsibility, and upgrate his (or her) skillset, so as to not continue working at a low-paying job beyond adolescence (or one's early twenties, anyway).
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 15, 2014 1:23:41 GMT
As for my "proposal": Whereas I am not sure that any proposal would be perfect, I do believe that the situation that existed pre-ObamaCare was far superior to what currently exists. (Note: There are some aspects of ObamaCare that I actually view positively, such as the elimination of annual or lifetime caps upon the insurance carriers' financial responsibilities, and the end to exclusions for pre-existing conditions--although the latter might have been addressed through the creation of high-risk pools; but I am very glad to see it go the way of the stegosaurus, anyway. I merely object to the compulsory nature of ObamaCare, as well as the Democrats' blatant shutting out of the GOP from discussions in 2009 and early 2010, when the latter would have preferred to suggest tort reform and the ability of insurance carriers to sell their policies across state lines, in addition to the expansion of HSAs.)
I have read that because of "Obamacare" the percentage of "uninsured" has dropped from 20% nationwide to 15% nationwide for 2014. More specifically it dropped to about 13% in "Democratic" states that embraced "Obamacare" but to only about 17% in "Republican" states probably because the Republican states rejected the expansion of Medicaid living millions without insurance.
How it can be rationalize that more Americans NOT receiving health care prior to "Obamacare" is better than more Americans receiving health care with "Obamacare" is a puzzlement to me. How is "not treating people's medical needs" better than "treating people's medical needs" is a question that I can't answer.
Republicans were not "shut-out" in 2009 or since but instead was the fact that they didn't address the problem.
Tort reform, allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines, expanding HSA's and even tax credits that Republicans have discussed are all worthy of consideration but the fact is that they only address those Americans that already have or can afford health insurance but that is not the problem.
The "Problem" was/is tens of millions of Americans that can't afford health care services and/or health insurance and tens of thousands of Americans dying annually because they don't have and/or can't afford health insurance.
Because "Capitalism" is not "perfect" pragmatically there are no "perfect solutions" so we must address the "best possible solution" instead but it must address the PROBLEM and not ignore it. We can also assume that the "best possible solution" is also going to have to be "complusory" because "voluntary" hasn't worked under Capitalism in the United States which is why we have the problem. This takes us back to basically the three choices (or a combination):
The Individual Mandate. The Employer Mandate. The Government Mandate.
Your apparent view--i.e. that a despotism (whether benign or otherwise) is superior to an imperfect system of capitalism--is one that I do not share. Moreover, one's having healthcare insurance and one's having access to healthcare are two entirely different matters. They ought not be conflated.
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 15, 2014 12:39:15 GMT
My own proposal (as I have previously indicated, on more than occasion) is for each person to take individual responsibility, and upgrate his (or her) skillset, so as to not continue working at a low-paying job beyond adolescence (or one's early twenties, anyway).
The problem isn't a lack of "skill sets" by the person but instead the problem is roughly 18 million more people looking for work than there are jobs and the only jobs being created are low paying jobs. When we grew up the average age for someone working at McDonalds was probably about 19-20 with many being part time employees working their first job at 16 while still in high school. Today, because of a lack of jobs in the United States the average age of a McDonalds employee is 29 from what I understand.
The problem isn't a "lack of skillsets" by the workers but instead it's the fact that we have about 18 million people that can't find work and the only jobs being created are low paying jobs. Just because a person has "advanced skillsets" doesn't imply they can get a job that pays more than minimum wage today and, in fact, millions can't. Remember a fact that roughly 1/3rd of college graduates that are working are in a job that doesn't require a college degree. They spent four years acquiring "advanced skills" by obtaining a college education and it means absolutely nothing.
BTW If you want to know what I consider to be the most important "skillset" a person can learn is then it is learning to "show up on time daily and be willing to learn more about the job and apply that knowledge." In my 45 years in manufacturing I've dealt with both "experienced" workers and "non-experienced" workers and have found that the "non-experienced" worker is often far more productive than the "experienced" worker because they generally have the superior "skillset" I've mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 15, 2014 12:52:13 GMT
Your apparent view--i.e. that a despotism (whether benign or otherwise) is superior to an imperfect system of capitalism--is one that I do not share. Moreover, one's having healthcare insurance and one's having access to healthcare are two entirely different matters. They ought not be conflated.
In one thread you argue against anarcho-capitalism (i.e. capitalism without regulation) and here you apparently support it.
Yes, there is a difference between having healthcare insurance (or the ability to pay for healthcare services) and having access to healthcare. Of course there basically isn't "free healthcare" in the United State although I worked hard in the late 1960's and early 1970's in establishing "free clinics" where medical professionals and others would assume the costs of providing healthcare services for people at no cost to the patient. It still wasn't a "free lunch" as we required a lot of financial donations to fund the "free clinics" of the times. Today there still are some "Free Clinics" but they are few and far between and they still require funding.
If you want to address "access for healthcare services" then you're going to have to define how these services are going to be funded so that those that can't afford the healthcare services can obtain them free of charge.
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 16, 2014 0:09:16 GMT
My own proposal (as I have previously indicated, on more than occasion) is for each person to take individual responsibility, and upgrate his (or her) skillset, so as to not continue working at a low-paying job beyond adolescence (or one's early twenties, anyway).
The problem isn't a lack of "skill sets" by the person but instead the problem is roughly 18 million more people looking for work than there are jobs and the only jobs being created are low paying jobs. When we grew up the average age for someone working at McDonalds was probably about 19-20 with many being part time employees working their first job at 16 while still in high school. Today, because of a lack of jobs in the United States the average age of a McDonalds employee is 29 from what I understand.
The problem isn't a "lack of skillsets" by the workers but instead it's the fact that we have about 18 million people that can't find work and the only jobs being created are low paying jobs. Just because a person has "advanced skillsets" doesn't imply they can get a job that pays more than minimum wage today and, in fact, millions can't. Remember a fact that roughly 1/3rd of college graduates that are working are in a job that doesn't require a college degree. They spent four years acquiring "advanced skills" by obtaining a college education and it means absolutely nothing.
BTW If you want to know what I consider to be the most important "skillset" a person can learn is then it is learning to "show up on time daily and be willing to learn more about the job and apply that knowledge." In my 45 years in manufacturing I've dealt with both "experienced" workers and "non-experienced" workers and have found that the "non-experienced" worker is often far more productive than the "experienced" worker because they generally have the superior "skillset" I've mentioned.
First, let me just say that I agree wholeheartedly with your analysis that something as rudimentary as just showing up on time is of enormous importance! It shows a good attitude; which is exceedingly important, in my view. But what evidence do you have that there are 18 million more job seekers with advanced skills than there are jobs requiring advanced skills that remain unfulfilled?
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 16, 2014 0:16:05 GMT
Your apparent view--i.e. that a despotism (whether benign or otherwise) is superior to an imperfect system of capitalism--is one that I do not share. Moreover, one's having healthcare insurance and one's having access to healthcare are two entirely different matters. They ought not be conflated.
In one thread you argue against anarcho-capitalism (i.e. capitalism without regulation) and here you apparently support it.
Yes, there is a difference between having healthcare insurance (or the ability to pay for healthcare services) and having access to healthcare. Of course there basically isn't "free healthcare" in the United State although I worked hard in the late 1960's and early 1970's in establishing "free clinics" where medical professionals and others would assume the costs of providing healthcare services for people at no cost to the patient. It still wasn't a "free lunch" as we required a lot of financial donations to fund the "free clinics" of the times. Today there still are some "Free Clinics" but they are few and far between and they still require funding.
If you want to address "access for healthcare services" then you're going to have to define how these services are going to be funded so that those that can't afford the healthcare services can obtain them free of charge.
There is a middle ground, you know, between one's believing in anarcho-capitalism and one's believing in promiscuous regulations. Why should I have to "define" how these healthcare services are to be funded? They appear to be working perfectly well, as things currently stand. Moreover, no American should feel compelled to resort to these services permanently, anymore than, say, welfare should be a permanent feature of one's life. This should be a matter of assistance for a temporary inability to purchase healthcare insurance, not an ongoing way of life.
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 16, 2014 9:43:49 GMT
There is a middle ground, you know, between one's believing in anarcho-capitalism and one's believing in promiscuous regulations. Why should I have to "define" how these healthcare services are to be funded? They appear to be working perfectly well, as things currently stand. Moreover, no American should feel compelled to resort to these services permanently, anymore than, say, welfare should be a permanent feature of one's life. This should be a matter of assistance for a temporary inability to purchase healthcare insurance, not an ongoing way of life.
www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/09/18/deaths.health.insurance/
I would suggest that 45,000 people dying annually because they didn't have health insurance and didn 't seek medical treatment because they couldn't afford it indicates that as things stood they were NOT "working perfectly well" in America.
We would agree that "Capitalism" is the best economic model but that is founded in theory as much as it is in reality and the two are not the same. There are fundamental problems with capitalism in practice where "people" don't live up to the criteria of the theoretical model. In theory capitalism establishes that all exchanges are based upon informed voluntary contracts of mutual benefit to the parties but in reality that isn't always the case. There are coercive elements in capitalism that result in negative outcomes and where the "coercion" violates the "Law of Contract" that is a basic tenet of capitalism.
Regulations that address these problems in capitalism cannot be claimed to be promiscuous regulations but instead are necessary regulations even under laisse-faire capitalism.
We do not expect an "enterprise" (employer) to "operate at a loss" but for whatever reason some believe that the "employee" should "operate at a loss" where they don't receive enough for the basic necessities of life that would include food, housing, energy and healthcare services. The owner of an enterprise would simply shut the doors and close the business if they couldn't sell their goods or services for a profit but the worker can't simply stop living if they can't afford to live on the compensation their labor provides. The worker is forced to accept employment that doesn't pay for their minimal "cost of living" and that "force" is coercion that violates the Law of Contract that is a primary component of the Theory of Capitalism.
Even under laisse-faire capitalism we need regulation to address the problems where the "Theory" and the "Reality" of Capitalism don't align. I don't understand why it is so hard for some to see the problem that needs to be addressed.
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 16, 2014 20:31:17 GMT
There is a middle ground, you know, between one's believing in anarcho-capitalism and one's believing in promiscuous regulations. Why should I have to "define" how these healthcare services are to be funded? They appear to be working perfectly well, as things currently stand. Moreover, no American should feel compelled to resort to these services permanently, anymore than, say, welfare should be a permanent feature of one's life. This should be a matter of assistance for a temporary inability to purchase healthcare insurance, not an ongoing way of life.
www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/09/18/deaths.health.insurance/
I would suggest that 45,000 people dying annually because they didn't have health insurance and didn 't seek medical treatment because they couldn't afford it indicates that as things stood they were NOT "working perfectly well" in America.
We would agree that "Capitalism" is the best economic model but that is founded in theory as much as it is in reality and the two are not the same. There are fundamental problems with capitalism in practice where "people" don't live up to the criteria of the theoretical model. In theory capitalism establishes that all exchanges are based upon informed voluntary contracts of mutual benefit to the parties but in reality that isn't always the case. There are coercive elements in capitalism that result in negative outcomes and where the "coercion" violates the "Law of Contract" that is a basic tenet of capitalism.
Regulations that address these problems in capitalism cannot be claimed to be promiscuous regulations but instead are necessary regulations even under laisse-faire capitalism.
We do not expect an "enterprise" (employer) to "operate at a loss" but for whatever reason some believe that the "employee" should "operate at a loss" where they don't receive enough for the basic necessities of life that would include food, housing, energy and healthcare services. The owner of an enterprise would simply shut the doors and close the business if they couldn't sell their goods or services for a profit but the worker can't simply stop living if they can't afford to live on the compensation their labor provides. The worker is forced to accept employment that doesn't pay for their minimal "cost of living" and that "force" is coercion that violates the Law of Contract that is a primary component of the Theory of Capitalism.
Even under laisse-faire capitalism we need regulation to address the problems where the "Theory" and the "Reality" of Capitalism don't align. I don't understand why it is so hard for some to see the problem that needs to be addressed.
By your noting that what the three people in your example "have in common," you appear to be confusing mere correlation with causation. The mere lack of healthcare insurance did not cause their untimely deaths. That was caused by their having made a choice--not necessarily to prioritize food over healthcare insurance (which would be reasonable enough), but to prioitize a new iPad, a cell-phone plan, or something else unessential above healthcare insurance. If they really want all these bells and whistles, in addition to such important items as healthcare insurance, I would suggest--not that they "operate at a loss," but that they upgrade their respective skillsets, so that they (rather than their prospective employers) may have the power to call the shots.
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 17, 2014 9:56:15 GMT
By your noting that what the three people in your example "have in common," you appear to be confusing mere correlation with causation. The mere lack of healthcare insurance did not cause their untimely deaths. That was caused by their having made a choice--not necessarily to prioritize food over healthcare insurance (which would be reasonable enough), but to prioitize a new iPad, a cell-phone plan, or something else unessential above healthcare insurance. If they really want all these bells and whistles, in addition to such important items as healthcare insurance, I would suggest--not that they "operate at a loss," but that they upgrade their respective skillsets, so that they (rather than their prospective employers) may have the power to call the shots.
What the three cases apparently have in common is that all three are self-employed and self-employment often pays less than even the federal minimum wage. I know that for a fact when it comes to freelance photography because I've been down that road doing freelance underwater photography in Hawaii in the early 1980's. You "assume" that they were simply wasting their income on frivolious expenditures when I seriously doubt that was the case and you certainly have no information upon which to base your assumption and the story indicates that they didn't have the money to even go to a doctor much less to be able to afford insurance.
As for "skillsets" you still don't seem to understand that regardless of the skillsets of the person they don't have "bargaining power" as long as there is high enployment. If we have 100 mechanical engineers (a high skillset) but only 95 jobs for mechanical engineers then 5 are going to be unemployed and can't get a job in their field, period!!! The employers use the 5 unemployed engineers to drive down the compensation for the other 95 engineers because the 5 are willing to work for less than the other 95 engineers.
As shocking as this might be I just read a story yesterday on unemployment were the goal of the Federal Reserve is to maintain this condition of ensuring that there are enough unemployed Americans to drive down compensation. The downward pressure on compensation created by unemployment counteracts the increase in the money supply that causes inflation. During a recession the Fed pumps additional money into the ecomony to increase the income of the wealthy bankers and investors and then adjusts it's monetary policies to ensure high unemployment to counteract the increase in the money supply by suppressing wages as the ecomony recovers to stop the inflation.
finance.yahoo.com/news/unemployment-rates-below-6-pct-25-us-states-145324567--finance.html
Of course we know what the difference is between today and 2000 when unemployment was at 3.9%. The Fed didn't pump nearly as much money into the money supply in 2000 when compared to how much it's pumped into the economy since 2008. Today the Fed has to ensure higher unemployment to create more downward pressure on compensation in the United States.
So on the one hand you state "improve your skillsets" and on the other hand we have the US government, through the Federal Reserve, working to ensure lower compensation regardless of the "skillsets" that Americans obtain by employing economic policies that create enough unemployment to prevent increases in compensation. In this "battle" the Federal Reserve, that is on the side of the wealthy, is going to win.
I've stated this fact repeatedly. High unemployment drives down compensation regardless of the field or skillset of the person. Whenever you have "unemployed" in any profession they are willing to work for less than the "going rate" and that drives down the "going rate" of compensation. What should be shocking is that our government, through it's agent the Federal Reserve, is expressly ensuring that the unemployment is high enough so that the workers of America will not have the bargaining power to increase compensation.
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 17, 2014 23:08:22 GMT
By your noting that what the three people in your example "have in common," you appear to be confusing mere correlation with causation. The mere lack of healthcare insurance did not cause their untimely deaths. That was caused by their having made a choice--not necessarily to prioritize food over healthcare insurance (which would be reasonable enough), but to prioitize a new iPad, a cell-phone plan, or something else unessential above healthcare insurance. If they really want all these bells and whistles, in addition to such important items as healthcare insurance, I would suggest--not that they "operate at a loss," but that they upgrade their respective skillsets, so that they (rather than their prospective employers) may have the power to call the shots.
What the three cases apparently have in common is that all three are self-employed and self-employment often pays less than even the federal minimum wage. I know that for a fact when it comes to freelance photography because I've been down that road doing freelance underwater photography in Hawaii in the early 1980's. You "assume" that they were simply wasting their income on frivolious expenditures when I seriously doubt that was the case and you certainly have no information upon which to base your assumption and the story indicates that they didn't have the money to even go to a doctor much less to be able to afford insurance.
As for "skillsets" you still don't seem to understand that regardless of the skillsets of the person they don't have "bargaining power" as long as there is high enployment. If we have 100 mechanical engineers (a high skillset) but only 95 jobs for mechanical engineers then 5 are going to be unemployed and can't get a job in their field, period!!! The employers use the 5 unemployed engineers to drive down the compensation for the other 95 engineers because the 5 are willing to work for less than the other 95 engineers.
As shocking as this might be I just read a story yesterday on unemployment were the goal of the Federal Reserve is to maintain this condition of ensuring that there are enough unemployed Americans to drive down compensation. The downward pressure on compensation created by unemployment counteracts the increase in the money supply that causes inflation. During a recession the Fed pumps additional money into the ecomony to increase the income of the wealthy bankers and investors and then adjusts it's monetary policies to ensure high unemployment to counteract the increase in the money supply by suppressing wages as the ecomony recovers to stop the inflation.
finance.yahoo.com/news/unemployment-rates-below-6-pct-25-us-states-145324567--finance.html
Of course we know what the difference is between today and 2000 when unemployment was at 3.9%. The Fed didn't pump nearly as much money into the money supply in 2000 when compared to how much it's pumped into the economy since 2008. Today the Fed has to ensure higher unemployment to create more downward pressure on compensation in the United States.
So on the one hand you state "improve your skillsets" and on the other hand we have the US government, through the Federal Reserve, working to ensure lower compensation regardless of the "skillsets" that Americans obtain by employing economic policies that create enough unemployment to prevent increases in compensation. In this "battle" the Federal Reserve, that is on the side of the wealthy, is going to win.
I've stated this fact repeatedly. High unemployment drives down compensation regardless of the field or skillset of the person. Whenever you have "unemployed" in any profession they are willing to work for less than the "going rate" and that drives down the "going rate" of compensation. What should be shocking is that our government, through it's agent the Federal Reserve, is expressly ensuring that the unemployment is high enough so that the workers of America will not have the bargaining power to increase compensation.
First, let me just say that I agree completely with your outrage as concerning the Fed's attempt to increase unemployment--at least to some "optimum" level. Whereas it is certainly the Fed's job to stabilize the value of money, it is not the Fed's job to do so by driving up unemployment, thereby attenuating "wage inflation." But those with fairly impressive skillsets are certainly very likely to be making enough money to be able to afford the purchase of healthcare insurance--whether or not their respective employers provide it, on a subsidized basis. And this, regardless of whether there are merely 95 jobs for every 100 qualified applicants. (Unless, of course, they really do choose to spend their money frivolously.)
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 18, 2014 10:44:36 GMT
First, let me just say that I agree completely with your outrage as concerning the Fed's attempt to increase unemployment--at least to some "optimum" level. Whereas it is certainly the Fed's job to stabilize the value of money, it is not the Fed's job to do so by driving up unemployment, thereby attenuating "wage inflation." But those with fairly impressive skillsets are certainly very likely to be making enough money to be able to afford the purchase of healthcare insurance--whether or not their respective employers provide it, on a subsidized basis. And this, regardless of whether there are merely 95 jobs for every 100 qualified applicants. (Unless, of course, they really do choose to spend their money frivolously.)
"Fairly impressive skillsets" is a rather ambigous phrase but something I would point out. Times have changed from when I grew up. It used to be that a person could gain "fairly impressive skillsets" through employment but today that is far more rare and today even those with "fairly impressive skillsets" are unable to find employment.
I don't generally put much stock in anecdotal cases but will resort to using one. Of the 18 people I worked with in 2011, all with very impressive skillsets at least based upon the compensation we were receiving, about half are unemployed today. It was an unusual group in one respect as all had gained their skills working in aerospace over long careers (we were all over 55 yo) and we were basically too old to spend years trying to gain new skillsets. It isn't that there aren't openings in our field but instead, perhaps because of age discrimination or the fact that the group was "over-qualified" for the current openings, employment has been elusive. I don't like to believe that this is all because of age-discrimination, although we know it exists, but instead tend to believe that they are over-qualified and employers don't want to hire over-qualified people even though they are willing to work for the compensation offered.
Be that as it may, even though my case is only anecdotal, simply having "fairly impressive skillsets" doesn't necessarily result in employment and with the Federal Reserve using it's powers of controlling the money supply intentionally manipulating the job market to ensure unemployment to create downward pressure on compensation there is unemployment in vitually all fields regardless of skillsets.
Speaking of the Federal Reserve did you know that under Title 31 it is at least implied that the Federal Reserve is actually supposed to ensure that Federal Reserve notes and American Eagle coins maintain "equal purchasing power" in the US economy? Both US minted coins (i.e. American Eagles) and US currency (i.e. Federal Reserve notes) are legal tender and are lawful "currency" for use in the United States economy. Title 31 states the Treasury "Secretary shall redeem gold certificates owned by the Federal reserve banks at times and in amounts the Secretary decides are necessary to maintain the equal purchasing power of each kind of United States currency. When redemption in gold is authorized, the redemption may be made only in gold bullion bearing the stamp of a United States mint or assay office in an amount equal at the time of redemption to the currency presented for redemption. "
www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5119
Note: Gold bullion bearing the stamp of the US Mint are American Eagle gold coins.
Of course, like Title 12 where the Federal Reserve is supposed to redeem Federal Reserve notes in American Eagle coins, the US government and the Federal Reserve refuse to enforce or follow the laws of the United States.
Back to the point. If we look at the overall picture the Federal Reserve, based upon it's economic policies, is going to ensure that tens of millions of Americans are not going to be able to afford healthcare regardless of their skillsets. If every person in the US had a PhD the Federal Reserve would be using it's economic power to ensure that at least 1/2 of them would be earning less than $33,000/yr to prevent inflation.
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 18, 2014 20:23:52 GMT
First, let me just say that I agree completely with your outrage as concerning the Fed's attempt to increase unemployment--at least to some "optimum" level. Whereas it is certainly the Fed's job to stabilize the value of money, it is not the Fed's job to do so by driving up unemployment, thereby attenuating "wage inflation." But those with fairly impressive skillsets are certainly very likely to be making enough money to be able to afford the purchase of healthcare insurance--whether or not their respective employers provide it, on a subsidized basis. And this, regardless of whether there are merely 95 jobs for every 100 qualified applicants. (Unless, of course, they really do choose to spend their money frivolously.)
"Fairly impressive skillsets" is a rather ambigous phrase but something I would point out. Times have changed from when I grew up. It used to be that a person could gain "fairly impressive skillsets" through employment but today that is far more rare and today even those with "fairly impressive skillsets" are unable to find employment.
I don't generally put much stock in anecdotal cases but will resort to using one. Of the 18 people I worked with in 2011, all with very impressive skillsets at least based upon the compensation we were receiving, about half are unemployed today. It was an unusual group in one respect as all had gained their skills working in aerospace over long careers (we were all over 55 yo) and we were basically too old to spend years trying to gain new skillsets. It isn't that there aren't openings in our field but instead, perhaps because of age discrimination or the fact that the group was "over-qualified" for the current openings, employment has been elusive. I don't like to believe that this is all because of age-discrimination, although we know it exists, but instead tend to believe that they are over-qualified and employers don't want to hire over-qualified people even though they are willing to work for the compensation offered.
Be that as it may, even though my case is only anecdotal, simply having "fairly impressive skillsets" doesn't necessarily result in employment and with the Federal Reserve using it's powers of controlling the money supply intentionally manipulating the job market to ensure unemployment to create downward pressure on compensation there is unemployment in vitually all fields regardless of skillsets.
Speaking of the Federal Reserve did you know that under Title 31 it is at least implied that the Federal Reserve is actually supposed to ensure that Federal Reserve notes and American Eagle coins maintain "equal purchasing power" in the US economy? Both US minted coins (i.e. American Eagles) and US currency (i.e. Federal Reserve notes) are legal tender and are lawful "currency" for use in the United States economy. Title 31 states the Treasury "Secretary shall redeem gold certificates owned by the Federal reserve banks at times and in amounts the Secretary decides are necessary to maintain the equal purchasing power of each kind of United States currency. When redemption in gold is authorized, the redemption may be made only in gold bullion bearing the stamp of a United States mint or assay office in an amount equal at the time of redemption to the currency presented for redemption. "
www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5119
Note: Gold bullion bearing the stamp of the US Mint are American Eagle gold coins.
Of course, like Title 12 where the Federal Reserve is supposed to redeem Federal Reserve notes in American Eagle coins, the US government and the Federal Reserve refuse to enforce or follow the laws of the United States.
Back to the point. If we look at the overall picture the Federal Reserve, based upon it's economic policies, is going to ensure that tens of millions of Americans are not going to be able to afford healthcare regardless of their skillsets. If every person in the US had a PhD the Federal Reserve would be using it's economic power to ensure that at least 1/2 of them would be earning less than $33,000/yr to prevent inflation.
As I have noted previously, this sort of intrusion by the Fed--to try to attenuate "wage inflation"--is simply indefensible. Some people believe that the Fed should be abolished entirely. At the very least, however, it should be reined in. But none of this constitutes a compelling argument in favor of government-sponsored (or government-subsidized) healthcare insurance.
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 19, 2014 9:08:05 GMT
As I have noted previously, this sort of intrusion by the Fed--to try to attenuate "wage inflation"--is simply indefensible. Some people believe that the Fed should be abolished entirely. At the very least, however, it should be reined in. But none of this constitutes a compelling argument in favor of government-sponsored (or government-subsidized) healthcare insurance.
That it true. The only real argument for government-sponsored (or government-subsidized) healthcare insurance has been the tens of millions of Americans that are too poor to be able to afford healthcare services and the tens of thousands that die annually because of it.
On the flip side just because "Obamacare" is going to be expensive doesn't imply it's not sustainable.
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 19, 2014 16:57:33 GMT
As I have noted previously, this sort of intrusion by the Fed--to try to attenuate "wage inflation"--is simply indefensible. Some people believe that the Fed should be abolished entirely. At the very least, however, it should be reined in. But none of this constitutes a compelling argument in favor of government-sponsored (or government-subsidized) healthcare insurance.
That it true. The only real argument for government-sponsored (or government-subsidized) healthcare insurance has been the tens of millions of Americans that are too poor to be able to afford healthcare services and the tens of thousands that die annually because of it.
On the flip side just because "Obamacare" is going to be expensive doesn't imply it's not sustainable.
But the fact that adverse selection appears very likely--resulting in what actuaries refer to as a "death spiral"-- does imply that. Unless, of course, one believes that a government bailout of the healthcare-insurance companies is entirely proper...
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 19, 2014 23:23:11 GMT
That it true. The only real argument for government-sponsored (or government-subsidized) healthcare insurance has been the tens of millions of Americans that are too poor to be able to afford healthcare services and the tens of thousands that die annually because of it.
On the flip side just because "Obamacare" is going to be expensive doesn't imply it's not sustainable.
But the fact that adverse selection appears very likely--resulting in what actuaries refer to as a "death spiral"-- does imply that. Unless, of course, one believes that a government bailout of the healthcare-insurance companies is entirely proper...
I was just reading a story on the most recent "Obamacare" study and it appears that one of the greatest problems with getting the "uninsured" to sign-up for insurance under Obamacare was the perception by many that it would cost too much for many that didn't realize they were qualified for subsidies. I would put that down as a "Bad Marketing" problem that probably had two different sources. I don't believe the websites were very good and of course there were the Republican scare tactics that could have confused potential enrollees. It would be hard for me to tell specifically but if the website was bad then it would give people the perception that they couldn't afford the insurance or of the Republicans scare tactics worked they wouldn't even visit the website to attempt to sign-up.
In any case we would assume the government will do more to inform the uninsured for 2015 enrollment considering something like 90% of them do receive subsidies so the "out of pocket" costs to them is less than they think it is.
There are those that could make the argument that the government is responsible for the insurance companies financial woes to use as a justification for bailing them out. I don't know if I agree or disagree with that argument but must admit it has some merit.
I'm still thinking that the "employer mandate" is the best way to go. It doesn't really hurt enterprises because all of them would be subjected to the same expense and competition isn't harmed when that happens.
|
|