Obamacare-Because this needs it's own thread

[TomServo92]

 

Every day new people enter the work force - they're called teenagers. These people fill the entry level jobs as the others move up to better jobs. If you're 50 years old with a degree that nobody wants then you need to either move or find a new career. It may not seem fair but that's life and you have to prepare for it.

 

North Dakota unemployment is <1%. They're paying $17 at wal-mart. If I was unemployed I'd be moving to North Dakota. But people aren't willing to do any of that. They're not willing to move or retrain themselves. That's what people did before welfare, food stamps, disability and unending unemployment benefits. Amazing that nobody seemed to starve to death back then.

 

My wife has been working in benefits management for 15 years but a couple of years ago, jobs became hard to find or were contract only. After getting laid off, she made the decision to change careers and went back to college to become a paralegal. She makes me proud how hard she is working in school (on the dean's list every semester). You can't sit still and whine about how the world is unfair or you have to get off your ass and work to improve your situation.

[cal50]

 

Amazing that nobody seemed to starve to death back then.

 

No one is starving to death today and fewer problems with adult and child obesity back then as well.

Some prefer to not work and live on government assistance. It pays far better than many real jobs outside our borders with millions of people coming here to work OR get those "free" benefits.

[akirby]

 

My wife has been working in benefits management for 15 years but a couple of years ago, jobs became hard to find or were contract only. After getting laid off, she made the decision to change careers and went back to college to become a paralegal. She makes me proud how hard she is working in school (on the dean's list every semester). You can't sit still and whine about how the world is unfair or you have to get off your ass and work to improve your situation.

 

That's not possible. You can't get into college. It costs too much. You're supposed to sit at home and wait for somebody to throw a job on your front lawn or just draw a government check.

[MI451]

Every day new people enter the work force - they're called teenagers. These people fill the entry level jobs as the others move up to better jobs. If you're 50 years old with a degree that nobody wants then you need to either move or find a new career. It may not seem fair but that's life and you have to prepare for it.

 

North Dakota unemployment is <1%. They're paying $17 at wal-mart. If I was unemployed I'd be moving to North Dakota. But people aren't willing to do any of that. They're not willing to move or retrain themselves. That's what people did before welfare, food stamps, disability and unending unemployment benefits. Amazing that nobody seemed to starve to death back then.

They didn't starve to death? Actually your most likely technically correct, because they probably got sick with something else due to malnutrition but people starved to death, children were abandoned and child labor was common. But it was better before the New Deal wasn't it?

 

ND rate is 2.6% and that's great for them. I wonder if it will die out like the West Texas/Oklahoma oil boom? That worked out well for people.

Edited June 13, 2014 by MI451

[RangerM]

True in Spooner's time. I can't see anyone competing with USPS on price today.

Hard to say either way, because there's no way to compare service for traditional mail.

 

Noone other than USPS can legally put anything into a private mailbox.

 

However, when it comes to things that FedEx and UPS can do, they can be highly competitive.

[NickF1011]

 

Sure it is, that's why WalMart employees have to use food banks.

 

Is it Walmart's responsibility to provide jobs that people can support themselves and a family on? I don't think it is. If you want to support yourself and a family, get some skills that let you find a job that allows you to do that. And it's not like all Walmart employees are making peanuts. A friend of mine has been working for Sam's Club for 10+ years and makes a very comfortable living. How? He bettered himself and got the skillset required to become management. People stocking shelves (a job I did once myself) don't deserve to earn more than they do because anybody with functioning limbs can do it.

[RangerM]

I'd rather support low-skilled people for 50% of their livelihood to work at low-wage jobs, than for 100% of it doing nothing.

 

(and overpaying them is the same thing as paying them for nothing)

Edited June 13, 2014 by RangerM

[akirby]

Before public assistance people went and found jobs wherever they existed. If there were no jobs in one town go to the next. Learn a trade. It's amazing what people can do when they are not given a choice. But when you give them a choice of working or sitting at home collecting unemployment for years (or collecting disability for minor problems) a good many will opt for that.

 

Too many people expect to be handed a menial job requiring no skill or effort on their part wherever they currently live and for that job to pay them enough to live comfortably on their own. And if that doesn't happen it's somebody else's fault. Lazy Americans.

[xr7g428]

This is not complex. I dare say even Edstock knows this: if a job doesn't generate more in income than it does in expense, then it is going to go away. Raising the cost of employes just eliminates every job that fails that simple test. An increase in employment cost just decreases the pay back period for automation or off-shoring. Businesses exist for only one reason: to make a profit. If a business loses money the only question is when it fails, not if... To be of service to any one, to provide a job for any one, the business must make a profit.

 

If we really did care about the unemployed, we would allow them to work for what ever some one was willing to pay. Right now most high school kids are locked out of the job market with minimum wage where it is right now. How will those kids ever get the experience they need to enter the workforce?

[Edstock]

This is not complex. I dare say even Edstock knows this: if a job doesn't generate more in income than it does in expense, then it is going to go away.

 

Yup. As a graduate of the Canadian Securities Course, that's correct, and that's why they don't build cars in England anymore, except for a few uber-luxos. Of course, there's lots of reasons for this.

 

Now, society's product is not its Rolexes and its Porsches, but its people.

 

For decades, Americans have tried to get the Japanese to remove tariffs of American rice and allow elimination of numerous layers of middle-men who were driving costs up. They would point out the cost savings to the Japanese consumer in your typical Randian/Neo-con rant.

 

The Japanese pointed out that these layers of middle-men had promoted stability for hundreds of years in their culture, and that everybody had enough to eat at these prices.

 

So, to the Japanese, a less than optimum market efficiency may not benefit the Koch brothers or Wall St., but it benefits Japanese society as a whole.

 

Alan Jackson had the same thing to say a while back. Too bad the GOP doesn't pay attention.

 

[MI451]

This is not complex. I dare say even Edstock knows this: if a job doesn't generate more in income than it does in expense, then it is going to go away. Raising the cost of employes just eliminates every job that fails that simple test. An increase in employment cost just decreases the pay back period for automation or off-shoring. Businesses exist for only one reason: to make a profit. If a business loses money the only question is when it fails, not if... To be of service to any one, to provide a job for any one, the business must make a profit.

Not all businesses exist for that. A majority yes, but not all. Some exist only to provide a service. You are familiar with NPO's correct? And not just charities.

[RangerM]

Now, society's product is not its Rolexes and its Porsches, but its people.

 

For decades, Americans have tried to get the Japanese to remove tariffs of American rice and allow elimination of numerous layers of middle-men who were driving costs up. They would point out the cost savings to the Japanese consumer in your typical Randian/Neo-con rant.

 

The Japanese pointed out that these layers of middle-men had promoted stability for hundreds of years in their culture, and that everybody had enough to eat at these prices.

 

So, to the Japanese, a less than optimum market efficiency may not benefit the Koch brothers or Wall St., but it benefits Japanese society as a whole.

Japanese society isn't benefiting from "a less than optimum market efficiency". Its society is dying due to the low birthrate.

 

Different reasons for this, but a big one is that the cost of living results in it being too expensive to have kids.

[xr7g428]

Those are examples of things that are not businesses. Government agencies are not businesses. None of those can exist unless there is a thriving business community somewhere that creates the jobs and the taxes and donations to keep them a float.

Edstock, what you are really saying is that if we hire one group of people to dig holes and another to fill them in that we can achieve full employment for the greater good of society. And since they will all spend the money they make it will all work out in the long run. Yeah, that's the ticket..

[RangerM]

Those are examples of things that are not businesses. Government agencies are not businesses. None of those can exist unless there is a thriving business community somewhere that creates the jobs and the taxes and donations to keep them a float.

 

Edstock, what you are really saying is that if we hire one group of people to dig holes and another to fill them in that we can achieve full employment for the greater good of society. And since they will all spend the money they make it will all work out in the long run. Yeah, that's the ticket..

I think Winston Churchill said it best, "We contend that for a nation to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle."

[grbeck]

The Japanese economy has been in a severe recession for almost 20 years now, and the population is actually FALLING as an increasing number of young people aren't marrying and having children.

 

Companies such as Toyota and Honda are increasingly moving production of their vehicles, along with the associated design and engineering functions, to places like the United States because it is now their most important market.

 

I would not hold up Japan as an economic success story.

[MI451]

The Japanese economy has been in a severe recession for almost 20 years now, and the population is actually FALLING as an increasing number of young people aren't marrying and having children.

 

Companies such as Toyota and Honda are increasingly moving production of their vehicles, along with the associated design and engineering functions, to places like the United States because it is now their most important market.

 

I would not hold up Japan as an economic success story.

Technically it's been stagnant not in a recession. That said there' s no one out there to hold up as an economic success. Each country has it's own failings and they all play havoc with global makerts.

[Edstock]

I would not hold up Japan as an economic success story.

 

But of course you wouldn't. You see, this isn't about money, it's about the stability of a society over decades. As I wrote: society's product is not its Rolexes and its Porsches, but its people.

 

But when you're a product of the world's most voracious consumer economy, the Rolexes and Porsches are more important.

[RangerM]

 

But of course you wouldn't. You see, this isn't about money, it's about the stability of a society over decades. As I wrote: society's product is not its Rolexes and its Porsches, but its people.

In that case, Japanese society is on a "stable" descent into oblivion, because "its people" are dying off.

Edited June 18, 2014 by RangerM

[grbeck]

But of course you wouldn't. You see, this isn't about money, it's about the stability of a society over decades. As I wrote: society's product is not its Rolexes and its Porsches, but its people.

 

But when you're a product of the world's most voracious consumer economy, the Rolexes and Porsches are more important.

Japan's stability, though, is not the result of its economic policies. The stability is the result of centuries-old cultural practices. If anything, the country's economic policies are hurting that stability by discouraging the formation of families. Japan is faced with the challenge of a declining population, as an increasing number of young people are not marrying and having children. Those that do marry tend to have one child at the most.

 

Japan is a very consumer-oriented society...luxury goods, in particular, are quite popular there, and brand names carry a great deal of clout. More so than here, as the Japanese place a much higher priority on "conformity" than North Americans do. Their economic malaise has hindered sales of luxury goods - and other goods in general (sales of all vehicles, not just luxury models, have been lackluster for years now in Japan).

Edited June 18, 2014 by grbeck

[FiredMotorCompany]

Radio reports I heard this morning mentioned the 2015 Obamacare premiums are climbing 5-20%.

 

Dang! Who saw THAT coming?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who didn't?

[RangerM]

Radio reports I heard this morning mentioned the 2015 Obamacare premiums are climbing 5-20%.

For whom?

 

The ones who don't pay the real premium, or the ones who make up the difference so they don't have to?

[NickF1011]

Which is it? 5 or 20? I would be willing to bet that premiums previous to Obamacare were increasing on average at least 5-10% per year as it was already.

[RangerM]

Which is it? 5 or 20? I would be willing to bet that premiums previous to Obamacare were increasing on average at least 5-10% per year as it was already.

It's both and neither. It has to do with the actuarial tables, and whether or not you're talking about individual versus group (employer-based) policies.

 

The 5 years prior to the passage of Obamacare the average annual family employer-based premium increase was 4.8%. After passage the average was 5.9%

Edited June 20, 2014 by RangerM

[NickF1011]

It's both and neither. It has to do with the actuarial tables, and whether or not you're talking about individual versus group (employer-based) policies.

 

The 5 years prior to the passage of Obamacare the average annual family employer-based premium increase was 4.8%. After passage the average was 5.9%

 

In other words, the difference is statistically irrelevant given the short sample period.

[RangerM]

 

In other words, the difference is statistically irrelevant given the short sample period.

If you're looking for a trend, then one data point is statistically useless.

 

But if you're facing a 20% increase in your health insurance premiums, that's little solace.