Food Stamp Riots

[ucodegen]

[quote=bearishgurl]And since America is becoming more and more of a “police state” every month, I just don’t see the lawlessness in our future as you do.[/quote]And you trust the police absolutely? Police don’t get involved in illegal activities? With an increased police state, it actually gets worse for the population because there is no check/balance against police misbehavior.

[Jazzman]

[quote=SD Realtor]Maybe nsr, however I tend to fall into agreement with the author.

I hope for my kids sake I am wrong but I don’t see the direction of the country changing. I think we have way to much inertia in the “you will be taken care of” direction. We have 10’s of millions who need it, and we have dug ourselves into a hole where we cannot stop providing for them. The party that provides the most will always be elected now.

I see no way out, perhaps others do.[/quote]
It is hard to argue entitlement is out of control, when many see their plight linked to large entities that received government handouts for being “evil.” If jobs reduce dependency on entitlements, then clearly we need more jobs. But jobs that pay enough to provide the incentive to work and soon, before inertia takes a hold and the culture of not working becomes deep-seated. The wealth gap may also be unwittingly pushing the entitlement agenda. In that context, reversing entitlement is difficult to navigate, so learning to live with it and accepting the costs—if equitably spread—is perhaps an answer.

[The-Shoveler]

Time is compressing faster than you think

[jeff303]

Perhaps a relevant TED radio hour that might be of interest to those participating in this discussion: http://www.npr.org/2013/10/16/235781665/haves-and-have-nots

[CDMA ENG]

[quote=no_such_reality][quote=CDMA ENG]
A lot. No one assumes a “George Jetson” future where a machine does one hundered percent of the work. It has been explained, multiple times, why there is will a huge reduction in need for physical, and some intellectual, labor.[/quote]

I think a lot of intellectual jobs, such as Software Developers, are beginning the winter of their discontent and looking at a future that manufacturing was looking at starting in the late 1970s.

One last attempt at prospective. We’ve talked oil, there’s a boatload of good paying jobs in the Dakota oil fields.

Since 2007, the Bakken Oil Formation counties have experienced explosive growth and current have 3% unemployment. Impressive, be flexible. Go where the jobs are.

Now reality. From 2007-2011, all industries in those counties added 27,954 jobs. Twenty seven thousand jobs. Overall North Dakota employment grew about 30,000 jobs since 2007. A part of the Bakken Formation is in Montana but Montana has actually lost employment since 2007 in spite of oil field work.

Why is that important? Perspective. San Diego City has 56,160 people currently unemployed looking for work. A little over twice ALL the jobs created with the oil boom in the Bakken Field.

San Diego county, has 125,860 people unemployed and looking for work. That 4.5X all the jobs, across industries created in the Bakken field boom.

Finally, in that same time period, San Diego City grew a net 40,000 people.[/quote]

Concur with the software developer remark… and would even expand that to engineering in general. I have tools now that made things that it would take me days to do mere hours…

We are all headed towards obscelences… Just some more quickly than others…

I would say “F” it and become a wine maker but more and more that is even automated… Including Napa..

CE

[joec]

[quote=spdrun]Interesting question: if people are no longer tied to a job to get health insurance, will this encourage more people who are unhappy with their jobs to drop out of the labor market, thus opening these jobs to people who need them more?

Some Conservatives are saying that “Obamacare discourages work” as if it were a bad thing, when in reality, it may be a balancing factor for the labor market.[/quote]

I mentioned this in the shutdown thread as well…I think this reality will be a benefit for a lot of people if people who hate their jobs move on and do something else freeing up their job for someone who truly loves it. It will be a positive realignment of the workforce. These could be “good” (higher paying) jobs as well such as Lawyers, Doctors, sales, tech, finance, etc…

Overall, decoupling work with health care is a net positive for businesses who should be focused on their business instead of wasting time debating what health benefits to offer. Unless we are willing to pull the plug on people and simply deny health care when people are dying, I feel you have to have something since all these people are already forced to use emergency rooms now. US is the only industrialized nation without some form of universal health care.

How we pay for it, I don’t know…I think related to this topic, I’ll probably be long dead before all the shit hits the fan, but if the majority eventually has it worst and worst, I can’t help but imagine that those don’t have will simply feel upset enough to use greater “force” (and I don’t mean occupy wall street peacefully) to take from the few who have plenty. It’s just human nature if things are bad enough.

[scaredyclassic]

coud it be that greater efficiency goes to support a greater load of “freeloaders” and that this is sutainable, sort of?

[ucodegen]

[quote=CDMA ENG]We are all headed towards obscelences… Just some more quickly than others…

I would say “F” it and become a wine maker but more and more that is even automated… Including Napa..

CE[/quote]… and then the Cylons decide to turn on their masters.

[Jazzman]

[quote=6packscaredy]coud it be that greater efficiency goes to support a greater load of “freeloaders” and that this is sutainable, sort of?[/quote]
Yes, it could. But is it possible in a country the size of the US? Maybe the ACA will provide some answers. A while back, the WSJ did a feature on the Nordic model of welfare capitalism. The notion of 60% tax would freak anyone out, but how is it that the Norwegians et al seem happy with it. By all accounts it is efficient and sustainable. If the US aspires to middle-classdom, isn’t that sort of socialism, and if all that means is that everyone pays higher taxes for tangible benefits organized efficiently by non-profit entities, isn’t that something worth exploring? How do you ensure “efficiently” run government? Well, democracy (when it works) is supposed to do that. Creating a system of accountability for politicians might help. US politicians sneer at their constituents, populace, and voters, treating them like fools. Special interests’ sway over legislators is tantamount to bribery and corruption, and when you consider the scale of it, the Chinese hangman would be kept in business for quite a while.

[spdrun]

Wasn’t our top tax rate something like 80-90% from the 30s till the late 60s? If anything, taxes have been unnaturally low (especially for a “war era”) over the last 12 years, thanks to Idiot Chimp’s tax cuts and the Repugs’ steadfast refusal to roll them back while spending like drunken sailors on our military and associated parasitic “contractors.”

[no_such_reality]

There’s several reasons.

First thing we need to address is that per capita, the USA across it’s levels of Government is currently and has for the last five years been spending on par with GReat Britain, France and Germany. We haven’t taxed to that level, but per person, we’re spending the same level of Government.

Except we don’t have universal health care, SS is kind of like their pensions, but overall, we’ve been funneling our money into the Military.

When you look at Norway, firstly, their top tax rate is 48%, their GDP per capita is twice ours, with a GDP at basically $100K/person.

[livinincali]

[quote=no_such_reality]There’s several reasons.

First thing we need to address is that per capita, the USA across it’s levels of Government is currently and has for the last five years been spending on par with GReat Britain, France and Germany. We haven’t taxed to that level, but per person, we’re spending the same level of Government.

Except we don’t have universal health care, SS is kind of like their pensions, but overall, we’ve been funneling our money into the Military.

When you look at Norway, firstly, their top tax rate is 48%, their GDP per capita is twice ours, with a GDP at basically $100K/person.[/quote]

We have universal health care for 119 million people in this country (medicare and medicaid) at a cost of $940/119 = $7,899 per person on the program. Most industrialized nations provide health care for about $3,500-5,550 per capita. http://kff.org/global-indicator/health-expenditure-per-capita/

The real big problem is the total cost of providing medical care is this country. The key is figuring out how to provide medical care for less not figuring out how to get more people to help pay for the exorbitant costs.

[Hobie]

[quote=Jazzman]while back, the WSJ did a feature on the Nordic model of welfare capitalism. The notion of 60% tax would freak anyone out, but how is it that the Norwegians et al seem happy with it. [/quote]

Q: How do they pay for it?
A: Drilling in the north sea.

I’d be happy too.

[spdrun]

We have plenty of natural resources as well. Not to mention, if we instituted bank secrecy laws for foreigners, we could make money off the bad guys instead of killing them.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=livinincali][quote=no_such_reality]There’s several reasons.

First thing we need to address is that per capita, the USA across it’s levels of Government is currently and has for the last five years been spending on par with GReat Britain, France and Germany. We haven’t taxed to that level, but per person, we’re spending the same level of Government.

Except we don’t have universal health care, SS is kind of like their pensions, but overall, we’ve been funneling our money into the Military.

When you look at Norway, firstly, their top tax rate is 48%, their GDP per capita is twice ours, with a GDP at basically $100K/person.[/quote]

We have universal health care for 119 million people in this country (medicare and medicaid) at a cost of $940/119 = $7,899 per person on the program. Most industrialized nations provide health care for about $3,500-5,550 per capita. http://kff.org/global-indicator/health-expenditure-per-capita/

The real big problem is the total cost of providing medical care is this country. The key is figuring out how to provide medical care for less not figuring out how to get more people to help pay for the exorbitant costs.[/quote]

Besides high costs, I believe the $7899 per person avg annual MC expense is due to the WWII Gen and the dwindling fragments of the Greatest Gen not taking care of themselves. There are only 2.72 years worth of baby boomers currently eligible for Medicare (DOBs: 1/1/46 to 10/21/48). And of course, a few thousand of these new MC eligibles have barely had a chance to sign up and have not yet been to the doctor while covered under MC.

Remember that surgeon general warnings were not on packages of cigarettes until 1966 and they were handed out like candy for free to active duty military members prior to that. And smoking was allowed in every restaurant and bar until the early nineties in most locales. Smoking was also allowed in enclosed workplaces or in designated areas of enclosed workplaces, causing the smoke to filter into the workers who didn’t smoke.

The vast majority of the US population was also ignorant of the adverse affects high cholesterol levels had on the body. And there were very few gyms available to join and work out at until the mid-eighties. Sugar-substitutes other than saccharin pills and powder were unavailable until the mid/late eighties. And many of our mothers, grandmothers and great-grandmothers also had multiple children one after another which caused them (expensive) pelvic floor problems down the line.

The above are just a few of the differences between generations which are driving the healthcare expenses of the current MC-eligible crowd.

I see boomers as using LESS healthcare (on avg) than their precedessors did because MANY boomers (incl myself) have taken the steps years or decades ago to improve their health and fitness naturally (thru diet, supplements and exercise) and have pulled away from the daily/weekly practice of the regional food cultures that they grew up with. And many boomers (incl myself) also watched multiple relatives die a prolonged, agonizing death from emphysema and COPD.

By the time Gen Y gets to MC age, it’s anybody’s guess how much healthcare they will need. A good portion of them seem to have turned into junk-food junkies from a young age … BUT they still have time to get their sh!t together and “recover” from their bad food choices and inactivity.

In my gym, the over-50 crowd is thinner and fitter overall than the under-35 crowd. Go figure …

[Author]

Posts