[livinincali]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=SK in CV]Just for a different perspective, I think he’s done an absolutely masterful job the last 5 years keeping the economy afloat. And continues to do so, despite the lack of support of legislators.[/quote]

That’s exactly it.

Fiscal policy has actually been very counter productive.

Bernanke did quite well with the monetary tools at his disposal.[/quote]

Nobody thought Greenspan’s low interest rates policies in 2003-2006 to deal with the dot bomb were bad either at the time. It wasn’t until after the housing bubble blew up, that we looked back and said that was kind of dumb. I figure this time will be no different. When Bernanke’s successor is forced to deal with the fed’s bloated balance sheet they’ll look to point the figure at Bernanke’s stupid policies of the time. “If Bernanke wasn’t so focused on the short term we wouldn’t have to be dealing with this mess,” will be the catch phrase 5 years done the line if not sooner.

[livinincali]

Don’t worry. The bubble that nobody sees right now will get bigger and then when it pops we’ll all say nobody could have seen that coming. Especially the fed because the only thing they’ve managed to successfully do over the past 20 years is create new asset prices bubbles when the previous bubbles blow up.

[livinincali]

[quote=FlyerInHi]We are spending more as share of national wealth than older healthier societies. Something is screwed up. Something needed to be done.

Everything is a process, not a be-all-end-all solution. ObamaCare is the beginning of reform.

I think a lot of the visceral opposition is emotional rather than rational.
[/quote]

I think emotion rather than rational thinking gave us ObamaCare. The first question to ask would have been why do we spend more as a share of national wealth than the rest of the world. Is it because we subsidize the rest of the world with R&D spending on medical research? Is it because we support small rural emergency rooms that are under utilized? Is it because of illegal immigrants using up resources? Is it because we’re a nation that insists that we’re all entitled to the best care regardless of cost and we don’t want to wait for said care.

I will agree that other nations do spend less on medical care for a variety of reasons, but I will argue that the solution isn’t pumping another couple hundred billion into the medical insurance industry. I’m willing to bet that after ObamaCare goes into effect at less half of the total premiums collected as will be an increase to the total medical spending in this nation. The reason is fairly simple. The new money that is collected is going to go somewhere and likely be counted as medical spending.

[livinincali]

[quote=SK in CV]
You have this kind of backwards. Reductions of ER visits are much more likely to be from patients that previously had no coverage and weren’t paying. That won’t reduce ERs viability, it will increase it. They’ll be servicing a higher percentage of paying patients, so if anything, they can decrease prices. And those patients who were previously getting free ER treatment, are more likely to see non-ER providers, with treatment at a much lower cost. So yes, it will lower the overall cost of healthcare.[/quote]

How do figure that it will lower the total cost of health care. Look at it from the vantage point of the ER. They have x amount of staff to pay, y amount of fixed costs, and some profit margin. Whether they charge 10 patients $1 million each and get paid on 30% of them or they charge $300K each and get paid on all of them doesn’t change the total cost of health care at all. Those 10 patients brought in 3 million dollars to the ER. It just changes who’s paying for it. Suppose this scenario.

The ER sees 7 patients cuts the $1 million charge to $500K and gets paid on all of them. The ER just made an addition $500K and total health care costs went up even though each individual patient was charged less.

Now if the ER responds by cutting their workforce (costs) because they see less patients the total costs could go down but nothing in Obamacare makes them do that.

[livinincali]

[quote=CA renter]
It’s pretty clear that, without unions, capital will always hold all the power and wealth. There will be no rolling back of protection for capital if labor is weak.
[/quote]

We live in a democracy. Why do advocate for labor laws rather than advocate for removing protections from the capital side. Why do we propose solutions to the symptoms of a problem rather than the removal of a problem. Organized labor can be weak as long as the electorate remains strong. Granted the population of the United States has been piss poor at electing real representatives.

[quote=CA renter]
If you can show us some examples of countries without labor protections that have a better economy/society than developed nations where labor has more power, I’d like to see it.
[/quote]

This depends on how you define a better economy. If I simply define a better economy as one that grows faster than another I could point to China, India, and Brazil as countries that have better growth with weaker labor. I can also point to France, Italy, and Greece as countries with strong labor and negative growth.

Granted growth isn’t the end all be all but all these economists seem to think that growth is the way out of the debt hole. It would seem moving further in the direction of socialistic policies that much of Europe has is going to mean that growth is never going to come.

[quote=CA renter]
You still haven’t addressed how highly concentrated wealth/power would benefit society or our economy, the platitudes about “wealth and growth,” notwithstanding. The rhetoric in favor or capital and supply-side economics does not match reality.
[/quote]

I never said highly concentrated wealth benefits society. I said that allowing competitive forces to happen without many government regulations would increase growth. You seem to think that unregulated competition logic means that wealth will naturally concentrate into the hands of the few but there isn’t a ton of evidence of that. Most companies grow and then die. There’s far more Kodak’s and GM’s in the world than GE’s or IBM’s.

I do think we need to do something with estate taxes. I would like to see the business playing field leveled somewhat based on ability rather than inheritance. Fixing the estate tax situation would lessen the feared massive concentration of wealth scenario.

[livinincali]

[quote=FlyerInHi]Honestly, I don’t know much about the details of Obamacare. My insurance is great so doing the research is useless to me.

I don’t however see how anyone can be against the concept of getting everyone covered with the goal of a healthier population.

Premiums may vary between different employers and individuals, but total health care costs are born by the whole country. Under the status quo, for decades, health care has been eating up a bigger and bigger percentage of our national wealth. We need to stop escalating costs and such things as the use of the emergency room by the uninsured population. Is sounds to me like Obamacare is designed to do that. There may be some transition pains but as the population is covered, costs will come down.[/quote]

What makes you think costs will come down. Say there’s a 20% reduction in emergency rooms visits because patients go see the doctor before they end up in the emergency room. Are some emergency rooms going to close? Are some emergency rooms going to downsize? What if instead the emergency rooms jack up the prices on their remaining patients to make up for the decrease in the number of patients they see. Does that lower the cost of healthcare in this country?

Obamacare is likely adding 30 million people to the demand side of the equation and it will likely take years for the supply side of the equation (more doctors, nurses, and clinics) to catch up. What’s likely to happen to the costs if demand goes up a bunch and it takes a while for supply to show up. Will the costs go up or down?

[livinincali]

[quote=CA renter]
The truth is that consumers do NOT have the ability to choose the lowest-priced provider of goods and services. These markets are highly regulated and controlled to keep competition out and to protect the interests of our corporations, educational system (mandated licensing), and the wealthy individuals who benefit from these things. Presumably, we do this to protect society, in general. I think an equally (or more) compelling case can be made for the protection of labor. Societies do not benefit when immense wealth is concentrated in a few hands while the masses live in sickness and squalor. Additionally, it is (well-compensated) labor that creates the demand necessary for these corporations to thrive.[/quote]

My solution would be to roll back some of the competitive protections for capital and businesses rather than adding more rules and regulations to protect labor. It’s a never ending circle that slows down economic growth because those rules and regulations have a cost and that cost is a non productive one.

The quickest way to lower the price of health care services would be to open it up to more competition. One really simple change would be to open prescription drugs to re importation. Then drugs that cost $100 here and $10 in Canada would quickly cost less here and probably slightly more in Canada. Of course instead of doing that we rolled out a stupid plan called medicare D to protect seniors from the rising cost of drugs. You eliminate the ban of re importation of drugs you don’t need a stupid plan like medicare D.

My problem with the government is we create a regulation to protect the producers of a product, then we pass a law to protect the consumers of that product, and everybody else gets to pay a little bit extra to support that model. That way the producers can make their profit margin and the consumers can be subsidized to support that profit margin. It would be cheaper and better for the economy if we stopped supporting noncompetitive business and labor.

I’m not in favor of a free for all and certainly I don’t mind tariffs or some other competitive tactics to keep most anti pollution laws on the books because that does indeed benefit everybody. But too many things are lumped into the “it’s for the greater good” when it’s really to support the few at the expense of the many.

[livinincali]

[quote=no_such_reality]
Low wages are the same as the pollution coming from the car. The argument isn’t that the laborer is doing something that deserve more, the argument is that if the product or service cannot be produced unless it uses sub-living wages, then as society, we’re better off without it.

Paying the workers a sub-living wage is just externalizing the real costs of your product and allowing you to practice predatory pricing against a business that isn’t externalizing the costs of having employees.[/quote]

The problem is sub-living wage is something subjective and varies greatly while skills required to execute a particular labor function are relatively fixed.

This is exactly why outsourcing happens. The “living wage” in China is significantly lower than the “living wage” here. Yet the skills required to put together an iPhone are the same. China’s workers have a competitive advantage even after you factor in various transportation costs and IP theft costs.

The solution offered by US labor is to not allow businesses to access this more competitively priced labor and force them to use higher cost labor because people in America deserve some kind of minimum standard of living.

I don’t really have a problem with the goal of raising the standard of living and GDP for the citizens of America. I just believe that government interventions via regulations and labor protectionist policies isn’t the best way to grow the economy. Purely focusing on the consumer demand side for the pass 30 years has lead us to this slow growth economy we’re in now. Protecting labor from the natural forces of competition slows down innovation and growth.

[livinincali]

[quote=FlyerInHi]Someone said earlier that linking employment to insurance is bad. I agree.

That the link discourages mobility in the economy, especially for people who have families and medical conditions.[/quote]

So you’d probably agree that defined benefit pension pensions do the same thing correct?

[livinincali]

[quote=bearishgurl]
Since then, I have done some preliminary research on coveredca.com. However sketchy the info that is avail on there now, the tax credits based upon adjusted gross income and the premiums which are on there now are likely close to an accurate representation of what they will be, at least in 2014. (I may no longer be a resident of CA in 2015 and I checked the exchange websites of the two states I am considering relocating to and their premiums are approx. $100 – $150 mo less for me than the CA exchange for the Gold and Platinum plans, respectively.)
[/quote]

So it’s ok when you receive subsides in the form of tax credits.

[quote=bearishgurl]
This is the main reason why large govm’t employers such as the City of SD changed over to having “cafeteria plans” in recent years. EVERY represented employee gets ~$6600 to spend per year on healthcare, including dental and vision care if they wish. If they are trying to cover more people than themselves with that, they are going to have a lot taken from their checks every payday UNLESS they sign up for the cheapest Kaiser HMO for everyone in their family, in which case they will have ~$175 mo taken out of their pay for spouse coverage.

This is the fair way to deal with ALL employees.[/quote]

It’s not ok when some employees subsidize other employees.

This is the fundamental problem I have with people who claim these type of programs are good for the whole. It’s really only good for the whole if you happen to be on the right side of the balance sheet where you get a net benefit at somebody else’s net loss. If total medical spending as a percentage of GDP doesn’t go down after the implementation of this program it just means some are net winners while others are net losers.

[livinincali]

[quote=no_such_reality]
I like the idea of a living wage, not because the worker is doing something that earns it, but because the citizens deserve not to have companies employing people that need government aid for the basics.
[/quote]

Labor is a product that businesses consume. Just like when I go out shopping I can pick a cheap product that will probably break in a year or two or one that will last for longer, businesses make that same choice. McDonald’s goes for the cheap route, In and Out goes for the quality route.

Do you like the idea that government could force you as a consumer to go out and buy a Telsa if you make over $100K a year and your car has more than 100K miles on it. Almost all the arguments made about how it would be good for labor if you increased the pay could be made about forcing you to buy a Tesla. It would be good for the economy. It would be good for job creation, etc.

We as consumers have just as big of a role in the outsourcing of jobs to China because we chose to buy that crap. We chose to support Walmart’s labor practices by shopping there.

If McDonald’s, Jack in the box, and the rest of the big fast food places colluded to raise prices we’d be outraged and yet when labor unions collude to force wages higher for workers we cheer.

In the past 50 years the primary purpose of unions has been to protect workers from the natural competitive forces of the economy. Nobody wants to be forced to pay $100 for a Sony Walkman today because there’s better options out there, but we demand businesses be forced to do this with their labor force.

Think about the other side of the balance sheet for a little bit.

[livinincali]

[quote=Want_to_Retire]
It seems everyone here, regardless of their position on strikes against Syria, are agreed that the Assad regime used chemical weapons against the opposition. Did I miss an episode of our war drumming MSM where someone laid out any type of believable, detailed evidence that the regime was actually responsible? For the life of me I think Putin is the only one making any sense here. Why in the world would Assad do this when he’s kicking ass and the UN inspectors are in town? Where are these mostly classified ‘evidence’ coming from? Why can’t we show it to the Russians and let them try to debunk it? Sure sounds like desperate and fanatical rebels wouldn’t mind false flagging some captured chemical shells on civilians and other, unfriendly rebel groups to get a boost in their failing efforts.[/quote]

I tend to agree that I’m not sure that Assad was responsible. Obviously that’s a pretty large point when it comes to punishing responsible parties. Just another reason that maybe we should wait for some more evidence before making a knee jerk reaction to this incident.

I think there’s a fair amount of proof that a chemical weapons were used. I don’t think there’s a ton of supporting evidence that the weapons use was ordered by Assad. Certainly there’s other parties like the rebels and Saudi Arabia that would like the US to strike Assad military forces. They might be just as likely or perhaps more likely to use those weapons in an attempt to bring the US into the mix.

[livinincali]

[quote=FlyerInHi]
The goal is for America to lead against the use of chemical weapons.[/quote]

Why should America act alone in punishing somebody for using Chemical weapons. The ban on the use of chemical weapons was established by a multi-nation treaty. That multi-nation committee that made the ban should come to an agreement on the punishment and execution of that punishment. Why should America institute some sort of vigilantly justice without the support of the member nations that established that ban.

Those that support a limited strike seem to think launching a couple cruise missiles against some kind of palace is good punishment for Assad and more importantly it allows Obama to saved face. Obama being labeled weak because he made a bad bet by stating he had a red line is worse than the potential consequences that result in launching a few cruise missiles.

Honestly tell me you’d support a limited strike on Assad if Romney was president and had made the same statements as Obama. Sometimes the guy or girl you support politically does something dumb and you just have to come to the conclusion that they aren’t the person you think they are.

[livinincali]

[quote=FlyerInHi]I watched all the Sunday analysis.

Syria is not about regime change but a punishing strike for the use of chemical weapons. Kerry made the case that regime change is a goal through diplomatic and political means, not military.

Coming from Kerry, a long time anti war activist, I trust his judgement.

A strike could be something like destroying the presidential palace.

I think that Obama asking for congressional approval will turn out to be a master stoke. We will find out when congress gets back into town.[/quote]

This post reminds me why it’s important not to get too attached to the political party. Obama drew some red line and in order to maintain credibly he has to do something that only his strongest supporters want him to do. Most Obama supporters are anti war yet now they want war (aka “limited strikes” to make it look better on paper) because Obama looks weak if he doesn’t follow through. Obama is indeed fallible, striking Syria with no international support is stupid. Just like it would be stupid to strike Syria if warmonger John McCain was president.

In the world of unintended consequences we probably get drawn in, topple Asad and the Al Qaida linked rebels get access to Syria’s chemical weapons. Brilliant strategy that was executed because of some kind of political face saving. Democratic party strategist, “We’ll poll better in 2014 midterm elections if we look strong. If something bad happens we can just put the blame elsewhere.”

[livinincali]

[quote=CA renter]
It’s difficult to know what’s happened here because we don’t know how many of the employees were trying to organize. Not enough information in this article to determine what really happened. Can’t just assume that because employees were generally happy in the early 90s that they are feeling the same way today. From what it sounds like, a significant number of current employees seem interested in organizing; otherwise, the union would not be trying to force a contract.
[/quote]

Did you read the article. The union is attempting to force a contract so it can legally collect dues.

[quote]
Then, after nearly two decades without negotiations, UFW organizers turned up last October and demanded a contract that would require employees to pay 3% of their wages in dues (between $600 and $1,000 a year). Gerawan also says that the union wanted the company to fire workers who didn’t pay up.
[/quote]

It would appear the current workers are attempting to resist the union.

[quote]
The Gerawans and their workers have been resisting the union power grab. First, the Gerawans complained to the state’s Agricultural Labor Relations Board that the union had abandoned Gerawan workers two decades ago, and therefore mediation was inappropriate. The five-member board, dominated by left-leaning academics and labor attorneys, rejected the complaint because the union was never officially decertified. Most of the current workers were unaware that the union was ever certified, since 95% of them weren’t around in 1990 when the vote took place.

Lupe Garcia, who has worked on the farm since 1977, requested that he and 15 other workers be allowed to participate or at the very least observe the mediation, which under state law is “on the record” and should be open to the public. The state board denied the request, ruling that the workers were represented by a committee of employees handpicked by the union.

Mr. Garcia then sued the state for violating his and fellow workers’ due process. A Fresno Superior Court judge has yet to rule on the case. Meanwhile, Gerawan workers are circulating a petition to hold an election to decertify the union. They already have more than 1,250 signatures. To be valid, a majority of workers must vote to decertify. The clincher: The election must occur before the mediator imposes a contract, which could happen anytime in the next three weeks.
[/quote]

The union isn’t trying to help these workers. The union organizers and leadership is desperately looking for revenues to pay their salaries. Union employees are their customer base.

[Author]

Posts