Private Riches, Public Squalor
February 22, 2020 3:33 AM Subscribe
Study: A year is too short for a U.S. worker to earn middle-class life - "The widening gulf... between what American life costs and what American jobs pay is a central fact of American political economy that the public appears to have understood long before economists." [The New Midlife Crisis]
Men Need to Join the Battle Against Overwork - "Male silence and female openness combine to maintain the work-family status quo."
cf.
Tech/trade unions: in need of a Kickstart - "Outlier status means unionisation at one small group is unlikely to herald industry-wide change." [Workers' rights; Kickstarting Tech Unionization]
also see...
An Agenda for the Intangible Economy - "Future productivity and prosperity depend on how businesses, people, and institutions adapt to new economic realities." [Productivity and the 'Intangible' Economy]
btw...
Unremarkables - "Most people, including the .1%, will use their skills and resources to ensure their firm has an advantage over others, even if that means turning a blind eye to externalities (environmental standards, monopoly abuse, tax avoidance, teen depression). Affixing your own oxygen mask before helping others is a decent tagline for capitalism."
There's a version of capitalism - "...perhaps, that takes seriously rather than legalistically the notion that shareholder claims are truly residual. Shareholders only do well after everyone gets theirs, under a generous definition of theirs."
The typical American man needs to work 53 weeks to pay for the basics of middle-class family life, while for a woman who’s the sole breadwinner the number is 66 weeks, according to a new study.viz.
That figure for 2018 compares with just 30 weeks for males at the median weekly wage in 1985, according to research by Oren Cass at the Manhattan Institute. For the median female worker, the figure rose from 45 weeks.
- This is the key tweet in this thread: "Which is a problem, there being 52 weeks in a year."
- The Cost of Thriving: "The U.S. economy of recent decades has eroded, rather than reinforced, the American model of thriving, self-sufficient families."
- This is What Minimum Wage Would Be If It Kept Pace with Productivity: "If the minimum wage did rise in step with productivity growth since 1968 it would be over $24 an hour today."
It highlights two very different pathways that each deserve much greater study: “What can be done about low wages?” and “What can be done about high costs?” Reforms aimed at making college less necessary, or health insurance less expensive, for instance, might achieve just as much as ones aimed at raising wages—if they genuinely reduced costs...
It is worth considering what the world would look like if this were the case. A minimum wage of $24 an hour would mean that a full-time full year minimum wage worker would be earning $48,000 a year. A two minimum wage earning couple would have a family income of $96,000 a year, enough to put them in the top quintile of the current income distribution.
So how can we break people out of this cycle of precarity and stress? Conservatives, who believe that poverty is caused by laziness and bad values, think we should CUT welfare benefits to force people to work. This is nuts. We should be doing the exact opposite!!Working Less Is a Labor Issue, Too - "Research shows that people in the United States are overworked and suffering for it. Instead of valorizing 'hustle', why not fight for leisure?"
The first tool to break the cycle is BASIC INCOME. A check that reliably, dependably arrives each month (or two weeks). Think how much less precarious and frightening it would make poor people's lives!
Men Need to Join the Battle Against Overwork - "Male silence and female openness combine to maintain the work-family status quo."
cf.
- Work-life balance secrets from the happiest countries in the world - "Nordic countries rank so high on the happiness report because they have things like free education and healthcare, low crime rates, cushy social security nets..."
- The Finns are Probably Living Better Than You - "Welcome to Finntopia. Finns are known as some of the happiest people on Earth... what makes Finns so clever, well adjusted and progressive?" [Why Are Finland's Schools Successful?]
- A Search for the Source of Italy's Malaise - "What, though, can the rest of Italy – what can Sicily, Venice and Rome – learn from this miniature paradise? Perhaps the careful allotment of resources and respect for the inheritance of those who came before."
Tech/trade unions: in need of a Kickstart - "Outlier status means unionisation at one small group is unlikely to herald industry-wide change." [Workers' rights; Kickstarting Tech Unionization]
Worker interests are divided between highly paid employees who want companies to mirror their ethics and lower paid employees who want better wages and benefits. Unless the two sides align, trade unions will remain at the margins of America’s fastest-growing sector.Millions of Americans Donate through Crowdfunding Sites to Help Others Pay for Medical Bills - "Approximately 50 million—or 20 percent—of American adults reported donating to a crowdfunding campaign to help raise money for a medical bill or treatment."
also see...
- How America's 1% came to dominate equity ownership - "Wealthiest households have bought $1.2tn of company stakes since 1990." [YIKES]
- World economy/stocks: Piketty is right - "As share prices soar, the inequality in owning listed companies will worsen." [Capital and Ideology]
- Demographics: California leavin' - "Migration of residents from state shows how rising prosperity can mask more serious problems."
Nearly all of the biggest challenges in America are, at some level, a housing problem. Rising home costs are a major driver of segregation, inequality, and racial and generational wealth gaps. You can’t talk about education or the shrinking middle class without talking about how much it costs to live near good schools and high-paying jobs. Transportation accounts for about a third of the nation’s carbon dioxide emissions, so there’s no serious plan for climate change that doesn’t begin with a conversation about how to alter the urban landscape so that people can live closer to work.How to Make a Housing Crisis - "The new book Golden Gates details how California set itself up for its current affordability crunch—and how it can now help build a nationwide housing movement."
An Agenda for the Intangible Economy - "Future productivity and prosperity depend on how businesses, people, and institutions adapt to new economic realities." [Productivity and the 'Intangible' Economy]
btw...
- State Capacity Libertarianism - "State Capacity Libertarianism has no problem endorsing higher quality government and governance, whereas traditional libertarianism is more likely to embrace or at least be wishy-washy toward small, corrupt regimes, due to some of the residual liberties they leave behind."[1,2]
- Evidence for State Capacity Libertarianism - "High quality of government is strongly associated both with greater human prosperity and greater human freedom."
- A simple argument for state capacity libertarianism - "Again and again—and in countries all over the world—declines in trust of government correlate strongly with calls for more government regulation in more parts of our lives."
If a rebalancing of public interest and private right is essential, if what we need is a reassertion of political sovereignty, then one of its central prerequisites is a reconstruction of state capacity.You elected them to write new laws. They're letting corporations do it instead. - "A two-year investigation by USA TODAY, The Arizona Republic and the Center for Public Integrity reveals for the first time the extent to which special interests have infiltrated state legislatures using model legislation."
Unremarkables - "Most people, including the .1%, will use their skills and resources to ensure their firm has an advantage over others, even if that means turning a blind eye to externalities (environmental standards, monopoly abuse, tax avoidance, teen depression). Affixing your own oxygen mask before helping others is a decent tagline for capitalism."
Yet most successful capitalist systems acknowledge that without rule of law, empathy, and redistribution of income, we lose the script. The purpose of an economy is to build a robust middle class. We have, traditionally, elected leaders who cut the lower branches off trees to ensure other saplings get sunlight. There is less and less sunlight. It’s never been easier to become a billionaire, or harder to become a millionaire.oh and...
The uber-wealthy paid a tax rate of 70% in the fifties, 47% in the eighties, and 23% at present — a lower tax rate than the middle class. Taxes on the poor and middle class have largely stayed the same. We’ve exploded the debt so rich people pay less tax. If money is the transfer of work and time, we’ve decided our kids will need to work more in the future, and spend less time with their families, so wealthy people can pay lower taxes today. If that sounds immoral, trust your instincts.
It feels as if something has changed. Gerrymandering, money in politics, lack of a shared experience among Americans, social-media-fueled rage, and an idolatry of innovators have led to a faustian bargain: the innovators (lords) capture the majority of the gains, and the 99% (serfs) get an awesome phone, a $4,000 TV, great original scripted television, and Mandalorian action figures delivered within 24 hours. [The Next Frontier in Storytelling Universes and the Never Ending Desire for More]
- The Middle Class Risks Consuming Itself - "As health care absorbs an ever-larger share of national income, many want the government to take over. Soaring tuition has spurred calls for free public college. Child care seems to have similar issues. These services represent a large amount of what people consume during their lifetimes."
- Socialism May Be Just What the Service Economy Needs - "Free markets have done an awful job making health care and education affordable."
- Industrialism, as I choose to define it right now, aims to create: "A) a broad, highly productive middle class that comprises most of society; B) high quality abundant public goods; C) a robust safety net for the poor."
There's a version of capitalism - "...perhaps, that takes seriously rather than legalistically the notion that shareholder claims are truly residual. Shareholders only do well after everyone gets theirs, under a generous definition of theirs."
The “shareholder value revolution” was the antithesis of this idea, recruited shareholders into zero- (ultimately negative-) sum fights over who gets what, working to diminish other stakeholders’ definitions of “theirs” and engineer transfers to shareholders.
Perhaps it’s utopian to imagine any other result under capitalist incentives. I don’t know. But if it could be recovered, there is some virtue in the idea of enterprise by residual claimants, a notion of stewardship that promises rewards only if everybody else prospers first.
Not only a great post, a manifesto.
posted by einekleine at 5:03 AM on February 22, 2020 [8 favorites]
posted by einekleine at 5:03 AM on February 22, 2020 [8 favorites]
Everyone who's voted for Republicans in the last 40 years caused this. It won't get better until they stop doing it.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:19 AM on February 22, 2020 [21 favorites]
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:19 AM on February 22, 2020 [21 favorites]
Great post. I despair some days for my country, and seeing the distance we have to go, with everything going on in 2020? It’s daunting. But I would rather have a road map for where we might go when morning rolls around again. Typically I only focus on one or two destinations at a time, like when you see a landmark or two in the fog. Thanks.
posted by cupcakeninja at 5:34 AM on February 22, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by cupcakeninja at 5:34 AM on February 22, 2020 [1 favorite]
I feel like some of the most manifestly "unfair" behavior we've seen -- the treatment of Merrick Garland, for instance -- would have been a serious turnoff for voters ~50 years ago, and then I wonder what's changed since then. Here's my theory:
50-70 years ago, it was important to the "middle class" to perceive the world as "fair". That is, that their relative success was a measure of their objective worth and not because e.g. they were white. The poor and disadvantaged (by contrast) knew that the world was not fundamentally fair, as did the rich -- but why should they care?
Today, a much smaller middle class doesn't care about fairness because they're too worried about losing what they have to be concerned about whether or not it's been "earned".
posted by Slothrup at 6:02 AM on February 22, 2020 [15 favorites]
50-70 years ago, it was important to the "middle class" to perceive the world as "fair". That is, that their relative success was a measure of their objective worth and not because e.g. they were white. The poor and disadvantaged (by contrast) knew that the world was not fundamentally fair, as did the rich -- but why should they care?
Today, a much smaller middle class doesn't care about fairness because they're too worried about losing what they have to be concerned about whether or not it's been "earned".
posted by Slothrup at 6:02 AM on February 22, 2020 [15 favorites]
Aka the got mine fuck you school of thought.
posted by dazed_one at 6:25 AM on February 22, 2020 [12 favorites]
posted by dazed_one at 6:25 AM on February 22, 2020 [12 favorites]
That Bloomberg article about work-life balance should be a must-read for all corporate HR people. Now, if we could just make it so people could live on a 20-30 hour a week job.
I recently had an employer tell me that in 20 years everyone will have 2-3 jobs and each of them will only be for a few hours a week. Great! Can I pay my bills?
posted by irisclara at 7:51 AM on February 22, 2020 [2 favorites]
I recently had an employer tell me that in 20 years everyone will have 2-3 jobs and each of them will only be for a few hours a week. Great! Can I pay my bills?
posted by irisclara at 7:51 AM on February 22, 2020 [2 favorites]
and then I wonder what's changed since then. Here's my theory:
My theory is a variant on this. The systems we live under affect our perceptions of the world and our ethics. We live under an economic system based on greed/profit motivation.
Sure, the original claim was that capitalism would harness people's greed, self interest, or selfishness and, through the magic of the invisible hand of the market, transmute it into economic order and public good. A hidden assumption was that people would always see greed and single-minded self interest as bad qualities, however, and that this would lead to social checks on people's worst economic behaviors, as other people would not want to engage in economic interactions with people acting too far outside the bounds of what was considered socially acceptable.
Instead, that greed and self-interest is what is fundamentally, systemically rewarded by capitalism has shifted our cultural views of what sort of behavior is considered acceptable, or even good or laudable. (The exact mechanisms of that cultural shift include (in my theory) what you describe, Slothrup, among other factors.)
posted by eviemath at 7:54 AM on February 22, 2020 [12 favorites]
My theory is a variant on this. The systems we live under affect our perceptions of the world and our ethics. We live under an economic system based on greed/profit motivation.
Sure, the original claim was that capitalism would harness people's greed, self interest, or selfishness and, through the magic of the invisible hand of the market, transmute it into economic order and public good. A hidden assumption was that people would always see greed and single-minded self interest as bad qualities, however, and that this would lead to social checks on people's worst economic behaviors, as other people would not want to engage in economic interactions with people acting too far outside the bounds of what was considered socially acceptable.
Instead, that greed and self-interest is what is fundamentally, systemically rewarded by capitalism has shifted our cultural views of what sort of behavior is considered acceptable, or even good or laudable. (The exact mechanisms of that cultural shift include (in my theory) what you describe, Slothrup, among other factors.)
posted by eviemath at 7:54 AM on February 22, 2020 [12 favorites]
Everyone who's voted for Republicans in the last 40 years caused this. It won't get better until they stop doing it.
Welfare reform happened under a Democratic administration. The banking and securities deregulations that led to the financial crisis happened under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Blaming Republicans might feel good, but all of this is a bipartisan feature, not a GOP bug.
posted by Ouverture at 7:54 AM on February 22, 2020 [22 favorites]
Welfare reform happened under a Democratic administration. The banking and securities deregulations that led to the financial crisis happened under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Blaming Republicans might feel good, but all of this is a bipartisan feature, not a GOP bug.
posted by Ouverture at 7:54 AM on February 22, 2020 [22 favorites]
Aka the got mine fuck you school of thought.
At worst, and at best the zero-sum fallacy. If they get, then that necessarily means I can't get, and therefore I am injured somehow.
posted by ctmf at 8:29 AM on February 22, 2020 [2 favorites]
At worst, and at best the zero-sum fallacy. If they get, then that necessarily means I can't get, and therefore I am injured somehow.
posted by ctmf at 8:29 AM on February 22, 2020 [2 favorites]
Workers of the world, awaken!
Break your chains, demand your rights.
All the wealth you make is taken
By exploiting parasites.
Shall you kneel in deep submission
From your cradles to your graves?
Is the height of your ambition
To be good and willing slaves?
Arise, ye prisoners of starvation!
Fight for your own emancipation;
Arise, ye slaves of every nation.
In One Union grand.
Our little ones for bread are crying
And millions are from hunger dying;
The end the means is justifying,
'Tis the final stand.
posted by entropicamericana at 8:30 AM on February 22, 2020 [9 favorites]
Break your chains, demand your rights.
All the wealth you make is taken
By exploiting parasites.
Shall you kneel in deep submission
From your cradles to your graves?
Is the height of your ambition
To be good and willing slaves?
Arise, ye prisoners of starvation!
Fight for your own emancipation;
Arise, ye slaves of every nation.
In One Union grand.
Our little ones for bread are crying
And millions are from hunger dying;
The end the means is justifying,
'Tis the final stand.
posted by entropicamericana at 8:30 AM on February 22, 2020 [9 favorites]
It's different because the zero-sum believers can honestly be concerned and sad for their fellow citizens, but also be sad that "circumstances" are "forcing" them to look out for themselves first.
posted by ctmf at 8:31 AM on February 22, 2020
posted by ctmf at 8:31 AM on February 22, 2020
If the American public truly understood this, they wouldn't continue to vote for politicians who enact policies which exacerbate wealth inequality.
posted by AJScease at 8:36 AM on February 22, 2020
posted by AJScease at 8:36 AM on February 22, 2020
What do thinkpieces like this matter? Abortion, guns, tribalism driving hate of The Other, false prophets selling self-aggregating images of Wishbringer Baby Jesus drive the 20% on each end and most of the 60% in the middle don't vote at all, seeing that their vote doesn't matters much against corruption, gerrymandering and the media kitties chasing the laser pointer of outrage.
You can post and think and sing to the echo chamber on Twitter and it doesn't mean shit except inside your own little circle.
Twitter reflects the opinion of the 22% of Americans (1) at the center of the "afford online access", "need validation" and "need to keep up with the youth demographic that has adult resources and juvenile judgement" Venn diagram.
Keep screaming at the rain, see if it changes a single drop.
Like any body in denial about their sickness, which we collectively are, we'll need a catastrophe - the national equivalent of a heart attack or a jail sentence like losing a war or a real economic collapse, or 100s of actresses saying the same thing about an asshole, for anything to really change.
Until then these thinkpieces are just Shakespeare:
Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
1 - https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/02/10-facts-about-americans-and-twitter/
posted by lon_star at 9:23 AM on February 22, 2020 [8 favorites]
You can post and think and sing to the echo chamber on Twitter and it doesn't mean shit except inside your own little circle.
Twitter reflects the opinion of the 22% of Americans (1) at the center of the "afford online access", "need validation" and "need to keep up with the youth demographic that has adult resources and juvenile judgement" Venn diagram.
Keep screaming at the rain, see if it changes a single drop.
Like any body in denial about their sickness, which we collectively are, we'll need a catastrophe - the national equivalent of a heart attack or a jail sentence like losing a war or a real economic collapse, or 100s of actresses saying the same thing about an asshole, for anything to really change.
Until then these thinkpieces are just Shakespeare:
Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
1 - https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/02/10-facts-about-americans-and-twitter/
posted by lon_star at 9:23 AM on February 22, 2020 [8 favorites]
Welfare reform happened under a Democratic administration. The banking and securities deregulations that led to the financial crisis happened under both Democratic and Republican administrations.
All of that was pushed by Republicans. The Democrats allowed themselves to be pushed into supporting it, as part of Centrist "triangulation." It's why Clinton was a crappy Democrat.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:03 AM on February 22, 2020 [12 favorites]
All of that was pushed by Republicans. The Democrats allowed themselves to be pushed into supporting it, as part of Centrist "triangulation." It's why Clinton was a crappy Democrat.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:03 AM on February 22, 2020 [12 favorites]
`Rise like Lions after slumber
In unvanquishable number--
Shake your chains to earth like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you--
Ye are many -- they are few.'
posted by doctornemo at 10:03 AM on February 22, 2020 [3 favorites]
In unvanquishable number--
Shake your chains to earth like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you--
Ye are many -- they are few.'
posted by doctornemo at 10:03 AM on February 22, 2020 [3 favorites]
This hits me hard.
I'm the income provider for a family of 3. I work 60-65-hour weeks. It is never quite enough. We are one serious crisis away from disaster.
I'm 53. I can't keep doing this. It will likely shorten my lifespan. But there isn't really an alternative.
posted by doctornemo at 10:05 AM on February 22, 2020 [16 favorites]
I'm the income provider for a family of 3. I work 60-65-hour weeks. It is never quite enough. We are one serious crisis away from disaster.
I'm 53. I can't keep doing this. It will likely shorten my lifespan. But there isn't really an alternative.
posted by doctornemo at 10:05 AM on February 22, 2020 [16 favorites]
Real (2020 $) per-capita (age 16+) monthly housing expense:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=qcWJ
hop in, the pot is shiny and big and the water is so comfy warm!
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 10:16 AM on February 22, 2020
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=qcWJ
hop in, the pot is shiny and big and the water is so comfy warm!
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 10:16 AM on February 22, 2020
Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate: 16 to 19 years:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300012
The boomers saw their participation rate as teens peak to 3 out of 5 in mid-1978 (the Carter economy wasn't as bad as the slaggers assert) but since 2000 it's fallen to an all-time low of 1 out of 3.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 10:21 AM on February 22, 2020 [1 favorite]
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300012
The boomers saw their participation rate as teens peak to 3 out of 5 in mid-1978 (the Carter economy wasn't as bad as the slaggers assert) but since 2000 it's fallen to an all-time low of 1 out of 3.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 10:21 AM on February 22, 2020 [1 favorite]
The banking and securities deregulations that led to the financial crisis happened
as Kirth Gerson points out above, "happened" is quite a load-bearing term in your thinking here.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 10:24 AM on February 22, 2020 [3 favorites]
as Kirth Gerson points out above, "happened" is quite a load-bearing term in your thinking here.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 10:24 AM on February 22, 2020 [3 favorites]
Dems are going to continue to be part of the problem if they keep focusing on social issues only and not include economics. And enabling the Republicans (as stated above). It's not as if the "Clinton Triangulation" was just in the past. Witness how damned HARD the mass of the party leadership is fighting Bernie to the point of literally breaking their own debate rules to let a non-orange racist sexist homophobic billionaire oligarch play.
If Bernie gets the nomination it will be IN SPITE OF the Democrat Party Leadership (and huge chunk of the base). Not BECAUSE of it. They are so terrified of actual change they will elect Trump Lite if they had their way. Meanwhile Pelosi and ilk will rip up Trumps speech while funding ICE and SNAP reduction. "Loyal Opposition"
My main concern w/Bernie of course is whether he will be able to reverse this tide. I believe he and AOC (and "The Squad") are our biggest hope and I hope we keep pushing and fighting. The old guard needs to go. The Neoliberal Free Market Reaganism has to die. The "consensus" needs to burn in hell or we will be the ones burning in hell.
It would be schadenfreude to see the Dems lose if Bloomberg got the nomination if it didn't mean we weren't fucked along with them. Sadly it's not really Schadenfreude if it's about one's own state now , is it. Just dark miserable gallows humor on us all.
My sister already died due to this mentality (along with her own mental illnesses, but the system did not work to make it better for her, it made it much worse) and it made my folks lose their meager life savings in the process (and my dad was out of work a lot during those "glorious" Reagan years, starting in 1983).
I can't stomach thinking of even more people struggling in this way (myself included). My roomie is disabled, and I worry about her having to "prove" herself over and over as these systems restrict ever tighter so the rich can continue to get richer while we work harder and harder just to stay afloat.
posted by symbioid at 10:36 AM on February 22, 2020 [8 favorites]
If Bernie gets the nomination it will be IN SPITE OF the Democrat Party Leadership (and huge chunk of the base). Not BECAUSE of it. They are so terrified of actual change they will elect Trump Lite if they had their way. Meanwhile Pelosi and ilk will rip up Trumps speech while funding ICE and SNAP reduction. "Loyal Opposition"
My main concern w/Bernie of course is whether he will be able to reverse this tide. I believe he and AOC (and "The Squad") are our biggest hope and I hope we keep pushing and fighting. The old guard needs to go. The Neoliberal Free Market Reaganism has to die. The "consensus" needs to burn in hell or we will be the ones burning in hell.
It would be schadenfreude to see the Dems lose if Bloomberg got the nomination if it didn't mean we weren't fucked along with them. Sadly it's not really Schadenfreude if it's about one's own state now , is it. Just dark miserable gallows humor on us all.
My sister already died due to this mentality (along with her own mental illnesses, but the system did not work to make it better for her, it made it much worse) and it made my folks lose their meager life savings in the process (and my dad was out of work a lot during those "glorious" Reagan years, starting in 1983).
I can't stomach thinking of even more people struggling in this way (myself included). My roomie is disabled, and I worry about her having to "prove" herself over and over as these systems restrict ever tighter so the rich can continue to get richer while we work harder and harder just to stay afloat.
posted by symbioid at 10:36 AM on February 22, 2020 [8 favorites]
This is an epic and amazing post. And everything central to my single preoccupation lately.
My wife and I have been confronting the burden of healthcare costs in taking care of our elderly parents.
My siblings and I were lucky we could split some of that effort taking care of my father. And that our parents had a healthy estate. But even with that and his military benefits it was about $4000 a month between us for memory care until he died.
Now my mother is going into the same spiral soon. There will be no relief until she too passes. So that’s likely another half decade of insane monthly expenses.
My wife is alone. She has no siblings. Her mother, comparatively young at only 70, is constantly in and out of facilities. So we may yet face decades of this. They cost a fortune. Her mother takes no involvement in her own life or health. She has three hobbies: smoking, drinking and gambling. Her mother’s savings are gone.
Our last step is to sell her mothers home which her mother allowed to rot around her ears. And after that she will have to go into a care facility full time.
So the costs between us will be/are almost six figures every year. Not to mention our own healthcare.
This is why I unapologetically try to make as much money as I can. And. This is why I care about the next election.
If Trump gets re-elected that’s it for any hope of anything close to socialized healthcare or wage-justice laws. I’m serious. We won’t see that even considered let alone the time to implement for twenty or more years.
And in that time all the baby boomers and us X’ers will be hitting peak usage of the healthcare system all while our incomes diminish. It will be a disaster.
We absolutely have to have a Democrat in office. It’s the only hope there is. And even that is slim.
posted by Everyone Expects The Spanish Influenza at 11:19 AM on February 22, 2020 [12 favorites]
My wife and I have been confronting the burden of healthcare costs in taking care of our elderly parents.
My siblings and I were lucky we could split some of that effort taking care of my father. And that our parents had a healthy estate. But even with that and his military benefits it was about $4000 a month between us for memory care until he died.
Now my mother is going into the same spiral soon. There will be no relief until she too passes. So that’s likely another half decade of insane monthly expenses.
My wife is alone. She has no siblings. Her mother, comparatively young at only 70, is constantly in and out of facilities. So we may yet face decades of this. They cost a fortune. Her mother takes no involvement in her own life or health. She has three hobbies: smoking, drinking and gambling. Her mother’s savings are gone.
Our last step is to sell her mothers home which her mother allowed to rot around her ears. And after that she will have to go into a care facility full time.
So the costs between us will be/are almost six figures every year. Not to mention our own healthcare.
This is why I unapologetically try to make as much money as I can. And. This is why I care about the next election.
If Trump gets re-elected that’s it for any hope of anything close to socialized healthcare or wage-justice laws. I’m serious. We won’t see that even considered let alone the time to implement for twenty or more years.
And in that time all the baby boomers and us X’ers will be hitting peak usage of the healthcare system all while our incomes diminish. It will be a disaster.
We absolutely have to have a Democrat in office. It’s the only hope there is. And even that is slim.
posted by Everyone Expects The Spanish Influenza at 11:19 AM on February 22, 2020 [12 favorites]
What do thinkpieces like this matter? ...
You can post and think and sing to the echo chamber on Twitter and it doesn't mean shit except inside your own little circle. ...
Keep screaming at the rain, see if it changes a single drop.
Why do thinkpieces like this matter? Because they perhaps contain a way to look at the current situation that hasn't been considered before, or because they perhaps have ideas leaning toward a solution that wasn't thought of before. Not by anyone ever before, but by any specific person before encountering the think piece. And putting ideas into the world, that's how they spread. If an idea spreads enough it becomes something people are talking about and even considering as being true, or possible, or a worthwhile analysis that is different from previous.
I don't think things like this are going to change the world, like some kind of magical political pamphlet. But repeated exposure to ideas is how "the masses" begin to absorb their concepts. The brilliance of Occupy Wall Street was that it introduced the concept of the 99%, which hadn't been in the culture previously. It hasn't left the culture since, and it's been shaping discourse since then (even while perhaps not yet creating solutions).
Screaming at the rain would never make it stop, but expressing enough displeasure with the rain might encourage some early inventor to realize that a frame and some fabric can make an umbrella, and that changed things a lot.
posted by hippybear at 11:25 AM on February 22, 2020 [13 favorites]
You can post and think and sing to the echo chamber on Twitter and it doesn't mean shit except inside your own little circle. ...
Keep screaming at the rain, see if it changes a single drop.
Why do thinkpieces like this matter? Because they perhaps contain a way to look at the current situation that hasn't been considered before, or because they perhaps have ideas leaning toward a solution that wasn't thought of before. Not by anyone ever before, but by any specific person before encountering the think piece. And putting ideas into the world, that's how they spread. If an idea spreads enough it becomes something people are talking about and even considering as being true, or possible, or a worthwhile analysis that is different from previous.
I don't think things like this are going to change the world, like some kind of magical political pamphlet. But repeated exposure to ideas is how "the masses" begin to absorb their concepts. The brilliance of Occupy Wall Street was that it introduced the concept of the 99%, which hadn't been in the culture previously. It hasn't left the culture since, and it's been shaping discourse since then (even while perhaps not yet creating solutions).
Screaming at the rain would never make it stop, but expressing enough displeasure with the rain might encourage some early inventor to realize that a frame and some fabric can make an umbrella, and that changed things a lot.
posted by hippybear at 11:25 AM on February 22, 2020 [13 favorites]
The brilliance of Occupy Wall Street was that it introduced the concept of the 99%
The encapsulated slogan came from Occupy. But the idea of the bourgeoisie and controlling elites has been around a very long time.
I don’t how much Occupy really changed. Did it increase voter turn out or serious activist participation? It probably helped Sanders become a force in presidential politics. Maybe even Obama. But honestly I’m not sure. I don’t know how to measure that. The results of 2016 were pretty discouraging. We’ll see if 2020 is different.
posted by Everyone Expects The Spanish Influenza at 11:51 AM on February 22, 2020
The encapsulated slogan came from Occupy. But the idea of the bourgeoisie and controlling elites has been around a very long time.
I don’t how much Occupy really changed. Did it increase voter turn out or serious activist participation? It probably helped Sanders become a force in presidential politics. Maybe even Obama. But honestly I’m not sure. I don’t know how to measure that. The results of 2016 were pretty discouraging. We’ll see if 2020 is different.
posted by Everyone Expects The Spanish Influenza at 11:51 AM on February 22, 2020
Nice post, but I have to say, the lead off article is just garbage, written by a right-winger from the Manhattan Institute.
The typical American man needs to work 53 weeks to pay for the basics of middle-class family life.
Here is how he describes the "basics of middle-class family life."
Just four items:
Rent - $16,000
Health insurance premiums - $20,000
Semester of college tuition - $10,000
Auto costs - $9000
Does this look like the typical middle class spending? Every year for the rest of your life? Nothing for food, clothing, etc?
It's just nonsense.
posted by JackFlash at 12:29 PM on February 22, 2020 [3 favorites]
The typical American man needs to work 53 weeks to pay for the basics of middle-class family life.
Here is how he describes the "basics of middle-class family life."
Just four items:
Rent - $16,000
Health insurance premiums - $20,000
Semester of college tuition - $10,000
Auto costs - $9000
Does this look like the typical middle class spending? Every year for the rest of your life? Nothing for food, clothing, etc?
It's just nonsense.
posted by JackFlash at 12:29 PM on February 22, 2020 [3 favorites]
Between my contribution and my employer's contribution, $20,000 is exactly what we spend on our health insurance. Our rent is more than that, though.
posted by hydropsyche at 2:19 PM on February 22, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by hydropsyche at 2:19 PM on February 22, 2020 [1 favorite]
Between my contribution and my employer's contribution, $20,000 is exactly what we spend on our health insurance.
Yes, but the example is computing how much of your paycheck is spent on health insurance. You don't spend anything out of your paycheck on your employer's share.
If you want to count the cost of the employer's share, then you must add the employer's share to your income. Otherwise you are double counting health insurance costs. Just one of the most basic arithmetic errors in the article.
posted by JackFlash at 2:50 PM on February 22, 2020
Yes, but the example is computing how much of your paycheck is spent on health insurance. You don't spend anything out of your paycheck on your employer's share.
If you want to count the cost of the employer's share, then you must add the employer's share to your income. Otherwise you are double counting health insurance costs. Just one of the most basic arithmetic errors in the article.
posted by JackFlash at 2:50 PM on February 22, 2020
In a world where I didn't have employer provided health insurance, we would be paying $20,000 for health insurance or we would have much shittier insurance and be paying much more more than our current $2000/year in out of pocket costs. We both have chronic conditions--health care is expensive as shit in the US.
posted by hydropsyche at 2:55 PM on February 22, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by hydropsyche at 2:55 PM on February 22, 2020 [1 favorite]
Health insurance is expensive, but this particular way of measuring it, how many weeks of the median person's wages is mathematically incorrect. It's just flat wrong.
He's using $1000 weekly median wage and saying it takes 20 weeks of wages to pay for health insurance. That's wrong. The employer portion doesn't come out of your weekly wages. If you pay $5000 and your employer pays $15,000, it only takes 5 weeks of wages to pay for your health insurance, not 20.
posted by JackFlash at 3:07 PM on February 22, 2020
He's using $1000 weekly median wage and saying it takes 20 weeks of wages to pay for health insurance. That's wrong. The employer portion doesn't come out of your weekly wages. If you pay $5000 and your employer pays $15,000, it only takes 5 weeks of wages to pay for your health insurance, not 20.
posted by JackFlash at 3:07 PM on February 22, 2020
We own a small business. We pay approximately $23,500 a year in health insurance. Not including co-pays, etc.
(Add in the other $2,000-3,200 a month to support two aging parents care needs.)
Yeah. The math here doesn’t bother me enough to be critical of it.
posted by Everyone Expects The Spanish Influenza at 3:19 PM on February 22, 2020 [1 favorite]
(Add in the other $2,000-3,200 a month to support two aging parents care needs.)
Yeah. The math here doesn’t bother me enough to be critical of it.
posted by Everyone Expects The Spanish Influenza at 3:19 PM on February 22, 2020 [1 favorite]
We own a small business. We pay approximately $23,500 a year in health insurance.
Your health insurance is tax deductible. You aren't paying $23,500 a year for your health insurance.
posted by JackFlash at 3:26 PM on February 22, 2020
Your health insurance is tax deductible. You aren't paying $23,500 a year for your health insurance.
posted by JackFlash at 3:26 PM on February 22, 2020
Mortgage payments are deductible. Rent payments aren't. Our rent works out to ~$21,000 per year, and we pay taxes on all of that income.
Our car is paid off (and we only have 1) and is fuel efficient, so our auto expenses are less. We pay ~$40/month so ~$500/year in gas + ~$2,000/year in various maintenance and repair costs. Add in another ~$500/year in transit fair. We pay taxes on all of that income.
posted by hydropsyche at 3:32 PM on February 22, 2020
Our car is paid off (and we only have 1) and is fuel efficient, so our auto expenses are less. We pay ~$40/month so ~$500/year in gas + ~$2,000/year in various maintenance and repair costs. Add in another ~$500/year in transit fair. We pay taxes on all of that income.
posted by hydropsyche at 3:32 PM on February 22, 2020
I agree with JackFlash -- I saw that article earlier this week and I thought it was striking until someone pointed out this problem, which appears to totally demolish the thesis.
I wouldn't be surprised if it's generally true that the median male American worker has a harder time paying to support a middle-class household than in 1985, but that chart isn't why.
posted by value of information at 3:52 PM on February 22, 2020 [2 favorites]
I wouldn't be surprised if it's generally true that the median male American worker has a harder time paying to support a middle-class household than in 1985, but that chart isn't why.
posted by value of information at 3:52 PM on February 22, 2020 [2 favorites]
The employer portion doesn't come out of your weekly wages.
What makes you believe that? If employers didn't pay a portion of health insurance, they would have more money available for wages. They see it as part of the compensation package. Why don't you?
...confronting the burden of healthcare costs...
This is the obscene failure of America's antisocial capitalist system. None of us should bear this burden. Socialized health care would spare us that.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:00 PM on February 22, 2020 [2 favorites]
What makes you believe that? If employers didn't pay a portion of health insurance, they would have more money available for wages. They see it as part of the compensation package. Why don't you?
...confronting the burden of healthcare costs...
This is the obscene failure of America's antisocial capitalist system. None of us should bear this burden. Socialized health care would spare us that.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:00 PM on February 22, 2020 [2 favorites]
What makes you believe that? If employers didn't pay a portion of health insurance, they would have more money available for wages. They see it as part of the compensation package.
Yes, that's one way of looking at it as I said above. If you look at the employer portion as coming out of your compensation, then you have to add that amount into your compensation. So your weekly wages are no longer $1000 as in the article, they are $1000 plus the employer share of health insurance.
In the article, he is subtracting it from your compensation and also subtracting it from your weekly wages. He is subtracting it twice. That is is a rookie mistake and should cast serious doubt on everything else in the article. There are other errors.
posted by JackFlash at 4:16 PM on February 22, 2020 [2 favorites]
Yes, that's one way of looking at it as I said above. If you look at the employer portion as coming out of your compensation, then you have to add that amount into your compensation. So your weekly wages are no longer $1000 as in the article, they are $1000 plus the employer share of health insurance.
In the article, he is subtracting it from your compensation and also subtracting it from your weekly wages. He is subtracting it twice. That is is a rookie mistake and should cast serious doubt on everything else in the article. There are other errors.
posted by JackFlash at 4:16 PM on February 22, 2020 [2 favorites]
If I wasn't a full time employee with benefits, my health care looks like it would be between $6-$10k out of pocket. I could look and see what my company says it is paying, but that's not apples-to-apples with what I would be paying myself. Maybe in a perfect world there would be public health care and my salary would rise by that amount, but I don't see that happening in any way. (I might get paid more, but I'd (happily!) pay more taxes, too, etc.)
Housing is definitely higher.
Cars -- I own mine free and clear, but there is still insurance (~$1000), maintenance (I just spent $1000 on tires), etc -- cars aren't cheap. Add in depreciation and gas and so on and it wouldn't surprise me if my reliable and paid off vehicle was costing me over $4k/year on average over time, though a given year might be less.
So no, I don't think those numbers are crazy town, even if there are issues and ways it could be better calculated.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:31 PM on February 22, 2020 [1 favorite]
Housing is definitely higher.
Cars -- I own mine free and clear, but there is still insurance (~$1000), maintenance (I just spent $1000 on tires), etc -- cars aren't cheap. Add in depreciation and gas and so on and it wouldn't surprise me if my reliable and paid off vehicle was costing me over $4k/year on average over time, though a given year might be less.
So no, I don't think those numbers are crazy town, even if there are issues and ways it could be better calculated.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:31 PM on February 22, 2020 [1 favorite]
Mortgage payments are deductible. Rent payments aren't. Our rent works out to ~$21,000 per year, and we pay taxes on all of that income.
This is so strange to me. In Canada, rent is deductable, like medical expenses. It's a non-refundable deduction (so the government won't give you money), but it at least is deducted from your taxes (at the lowest tax rate, so best for low income people, as it should be). Why didnt they just institute a rent-deduction at the same time as the mortgage, and call it a housing deduction?
But we have the same problem with growing inequality: return to capital and high status wages are growing, even as wages for everyone else stagnate or fall. We're not quite as far along as the US, but we're following fast.
posted by jb at 9:44 PM on February 22, 2020
This is so strange to me. In Canada, rent is deductable, like medical expenses. It's a non-refundable deduction (so the government won't give you money), but it at least is deducted from your taxes (at the lowest tax rate, so best for low income people, as it should be). Why didnt they just institute a rent-deduction at the same time as the mortgage, and call it a housing deduction?
But we have the same problem with growing inequality: return to capital and high status wages are growing, even as wages for everyone else stagnate or fall. We're not quite as far along as the US, but we're following fast.
posted by jb at 9:44 PM on February 22, 2020
@jb they didn’t exactly implement the mortgage interest deduction as a housing policy, it was a side effect of the 1893 Income Tax bill write up that made all interest tax deductible, even though 99% of all real estate at the time was paid for in cash.
Once houses on loans became a thing, it was too popular with the right people to get rid of it. And renters were never politically strong enough to get something similar.
posted by jmauro at 10:55 PM on February 22, 2020 [1 favorite]
Once houses on loans became a thing, it was too popular with the right people to get rid of it. And renters were never politically strong enough to get something similar.
posted by jmauro at 10:55 PM on February 22, 2020 [1 favorite]
Most Canadians cannot deduct rent from their taxes. AFAIK, it's only Ontario and Manitoba that have a tax credit for renters. Otherwise, if you're a small business owner, you may deduct a portion of rent or mortgage payments proportional to the percentage of your home being used for business purposes. Mortgage payments are not deductible otherwise.
posted by alltomorrowsparties at 12:09 AM on February 23, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by alltomorrowsparties at 12:09 AM on February 23, 2020 [2 favorites]
re: What do thinkpieces like this matter? ... Keep screaming at the rain, see if it changes a single drop.
draw your own conclusions of course, but even peter thiel is raging againstthe dying of the light learned helplessness :P
...and then you win!
e.g. U.S. think tank shuts down prominent center that challenged climate science - "The Cato Institute in Washington, D.C., quietly shut down a program that for years sought to raise uncertainty about climate science, leaving the libertarian think tank co-founded by Charles Koch without an office dedicated to global warming. The move came after Pat Michaels, a climate scientist who rejects mainstream researchers' concerns about rising temperatures, left Cato earlier this year amid disagreements with officials in the organization."
or like when "a right-winger from the Manhattan Institute" is arguing about how best to provide "things a family needs to achieve the financial security and social engagement typical of a flourishing middle class."
speaking of which...
If you want to count the cost of the employer's share, then you must add the employer's share to your income. Otherwise you are double counting health insurance costs. Just one of the most basic arithmetic errors in the article.
cass addresses the issue here:
posted by kliuless at 12:20 AM on February 23, 2020 [3 favorites]
draw your own conclusions of course, but even peter thiel is raging against
Extreme optimism and fatalistic pessimism may seem to be stark opposites, but they both end in apathy. If things were sure to improve or bound to collapse, then our actions would not matter one way or the other. Not only do our actions matter, I believe they matter eternally.steve bannon, too...
...and then you win!
e.g. U.S. think tank shuts down prominent center that challenged climate science - "The Cato Institute in Washington, D.C., quietly shut down a program that for years sought to raise uncertainty about climate science, leaving the libertarian think tank co-founded by Charles Koch without an office dedicated to global warming. The move came after Pat Michaels, a climate scientist who rejects mainstream researchers' concerns about rising temperatures, left Cato earlier this year amid disagreements with officials in the organization."
or like when "a right-winger from the Manhattan Institute" is arguing about how best to provide "things a family needs to achieve the financial security and social engagement typical of a flourishing middle class."
Who believes that a family should be as satisfied in 2020 with an 1880 middle-class lifestyle as they would have been in 1880? Instead of “how much has the money supply affected price levels in the economy?” or “how much would it cost a family today to live like one at some arbitrary point in the past?,” an economic analysis that sought to understand whether changing wages left workers more or less able to cover a middle-class family’s needs would ask “does this wage cover a middle-class family’s needs?”i.e. point being, instead of...
Put forward a plan to distribute wealth downward and it is called radical and unfeasible. Put forward a plan to distribute wealth upward and it is called good economics.and:
"If I write papers that are pro-big tech and anti-union, I get a lot of data that allows me to publish in prestigious journals. If I'm a pro-union guy, I get no private data as a result, and I have no great career."you get more things like probing looks at "the magnitude of tax related distortions in the global data," The Liberal Economists Behind the Wealth Tax Debate, People's Growth and maybe (just maybe ;) entirely new frameworks for "A unified perspective on efficiency, redistribution, and public policy"!
speaking of which...
If you want to count the cost of the employer's share, then you must add the employer's share to your income. Otherwise you are double counting health insurance costs. Just one of the most basic arithmetic errors in the article.
cass addresses the issue here:
Highly sophisticated models could—and should—be designed to analyze these issues in detail and examine how answers differ across demographic groups and regions. Defining the relevant basket of goods and services will always be an inherently political process and methodologies will differ. So long as analysts state their assumptions clearly, policymakers and the public can make their own determinations of what standards they consider reasonable and what conclusions they should draw...and fwiw, more here and here.
Health care costs are the most difficult to estimate and are highly dependent on the assumptions chosen, because most families receive “employer-sponsored insurance” (ESI). The COTI uses estimates from the Kaiser Family Foundation and the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for the cost of ESI family coverage as a proxy for the costs that a family faces.
While use of ESI data is imperfect, it provides a reasonable proxy for all comprehensive private health insurance policies. Individuals covered by employer-sponsored plans do not bear their full cost, but the share of the population under age sixty-five that is covered by employers has fallen to less than 60 percent. Among full-time workers with income up to 250 percent of the federal poverty line ($62,000 for a family of four), less than half have employer coverage.36 The share that will lack such employer-provided coverage at some point in time is substantially higher and access to coverage in the event of job switching is often a major concern.
Among those with ESI coverage, the share of premium costs borne by the worker has been growing and spending to meet deductibles (which is excluded from the ESI estimate) has more than tripled in the past decade—the typical covered household incurred almost $8,000 in expenses in 2018.37 Indeed, despite costs skyrocketing, the share of compensation paid as employer contributions for pensions and insurance has barely increased, from 11 percent in 1985 to 13 percent in 1993. The share in 2018 was slightly lower than in 1993.38
posted by kliuless at 12:20 AM on February 23, 2020 [3 favorites]
cass addresses the issue here:
No. He doesn't. He says why he chose full cost of employer insurance. Fine. He does not say why he failed to add that to employee compensation. And you link to Noah Smith, an actual economist, who points out exactly the same error, that he's double counting the cost of health insurance.
Cass is a fucking idiot. He's so stupid he doesn't even know that he is stupid. There are better sources than a right winger from the Manhattan Institute. I don't know what his angle is, but I'm sure there is one. Maybe it is to make an argument about income inequality that is so stupid that it discredits arguments about income inequality. I don't care to make the effort to find out.
posted by JackFlash at 7:49 AM on February 23, 2020 [2 favorites]
No. He doesn't. He says why he chose full cost of employer insurance. Fine. He does not say why he failed to add that to employee compensation. And you link to Noah Smith, an actual economist, who points out exactly the same error, that he's double counting the cost of health insurance.
Cass is a fucking idiot. He's so stupid he doesn't even know that he is stupid. There are better sources than a right winger from the Manhattan Institute. I don't know what his angle is, but I'm sure there is one. Maybe it is to make an argument about income inequality that is so stupid that it discredits arguments about income inequality. I don't care to make the effort to find out.
posted by JackFlash at 7:49 AM on February 23, 2020 [2 favorites]
.
posted by esoteric things at 10:10 AM on February 23, 2020
posted by esoteric things at 10:10 AM on February 23, 2020
No. He doesn't. He says why he chose full cost of employer insurance. Fine. He does not say why he failed to add that to employee compensation.
What is kind of unnerving about this is that the employee-paid costs of health insurance and the imputed rent cost of those who own their homes are considered 'income' in most governmental income definitions.
Theoretically this makes sense, but in reality, the increasing difference between rent and imputed rent via home price increases and the spiraling costs of insurance are both useful to show that Americans income is growing, even though we don't actually see any income gains from either of these categories. Many economists (sorry no direct cites) have said that if these were not included, then income inequality and relative income growth over the past 40 years would be even worse. Or to put it another way, all the income growth of the lower 2/3s of income in the US of the past 40 years has been in imputed rent and insurance costs paid by employers.
posted by The_Vegetables at 7:58 AM on February 24, 2020 [3 favorites]
What is kind of unnerving about this is that the employee-paid costs of health insurance and the imputed rent cost of those who own their homes are considered 'income' in most governmental income definitions.
Theoretically this makes sense, but in reality, the increasing difference between rent and imputed rent via home price increases and the spiraling costs of insurance are both useful to show that Americans income is growing, even though we don't actually see any income gains from either of these categories. Many economists (sorry no direct cites) have said that if these were not included, then income inequality and relative income growth over the past 40 years would be even worse. Or to put it another way, all the income growth of the lower 2/3s of income in the US of the past 40 years has been in imputed rent and insurance costs paid by employers.
posted by The_Vegetables at 7:58 AM on February 24, 2020 [3 favorites]
all the income growth of the lower 2/3s of income in the US of the past 40 years has been in imputed rent and insurance costs paid by employers
I would love to see this if anyone can find a study.
At first glance I'd wonder, "why are all these employers allowing the health industry to crunch their margins?" And this is happening to some extent. But it's a much bigger problem for small firms. Instead what it offers is a complicity where big business knows that the labor force along with their smaller competitors are getting disciplined for a relatively small price to them.
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 8:25 AM on February 24, 2020
I would love to see this if anyone can find a study.
At first glance I'd wonder, "why are all these employers allowing the health industry to crunch their margins?" And this is happening to some extent. But it's a much bigger problem for small firms. Instead what it offers is a complicity where big business knows that the labor force along with their smaller competitors are getting disciplined for a relatively small price to them.
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 8:25 AM on February 24, 2020
Mod note: Comment removed JackFlash, please give this thread some breathing room.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:23 PM on February 24, 2020
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:23 PM on February 24, 2020
....and Cass's numbers have made the digital front page of the Washington Post. Some shill will proceed to dunk on them in an op-ed and the circle of life will be complete. "Everything's fine, because this one guy can't do math!"
posted by Selena777 at 5:20 PM on February 24, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by Selena777 at 5:20 PM on February 24, 2020 [1 favorite]
Some shill will proceed to dunk on them in an op-ed and the circle of life will be complete. "Everything's fine, because this one guy can't do math!"
This viral chart doesn’t explain much about middle-class living standards, Matt Yglesias - "A top conservative thinker has a cool chart, but it’s wrong."
posted by the man of twists and turns at 1:35 PM on February 25, 2020
This viral chart doesn’t explain much about middle-class living standards, Matt Yglesias - "A top conservative thinker has a cool chart, but it’s wrong."
posted by the man of twists and turns at 1:35 PM on February 25, 2020
Just so you are aware of the guy some of you are defending, here is what Cass says about the problems causing low wages.
We need more "reprobation for the failure to engage in productive activity as an active drain on society that harms family and communities." It's you lazy reprobates who are causing low wages and destroying the traditional American family structure.
Other causes are the EPA and Clean Air Act which is crippling corporate job creators. And the 1935 National Labor Relations Act which gives unions too much power.
Another recommendation is to eliminate all social welfare programs and instead use the money to subsidize low wage jobs for corporations.
Oh, yeah, he also anti-immigration.
But what else would you expect from a recipient of wingnut welfare from the Koch brothers. He just writes what they pay him for.
posted by JackFlash at 5:21 PM on February 25, 2020
We need more "reprobation for the failure to engage in productive activity as an active drain on society that harms family and communities." It's you lazy reprobates who are causing low wages and destroying the traditional American family structure.
Other causes are the EPA and Clean Air Act which is crippling corporate job creators. And the 1935 National Labor Relations Act which gives unions too much power.
Another recommendation is to eliminate all social welfare programs and instead use the money to subsidize low wage jobs for corporations.
Oh, yeah, he also anti-immigration.
But what else would you expect from a recipient of wingnut welfare from the Koch brothers. He just writes what they pay him for.
posted by JackFlash at 5:21 PM on February 25, 2020
Why Life Is Pretty Good But Doesn't Feel So Great - "A so-called cost of thriving index gets the numbers wrong, but the message is right."
Total compensation approach - "Include employer premium contributions in both expenses and incomes."
Health Plan Deductibles Triple in 10 Years - "This dramatic increase far exceeds the growth in income over the same time period, and it has occurred at the same time that insurance premiums have gone up as much as 50%. It has left more than half of all families with deductibles over $1,500 for individuals and $3,000 for families, while around one in five policyholders have a deductible of at least $3,000 per person and $5,000 per family."
Based on the latest Kaiser Family Foundation survey - "The average cost paid by employers for family coverage increased by over $10,000 since 1999. Since a $ spent on health benefits isn't available for wages, health care inflation drags down disposable income growth."
Arguing over the 'median' - "Health care costs are a huge problem but they're not so big that they're actually reducing real wages overall. Here are real median personal income, real median weekly earnings for full-time employees, and real hourly compensation." (That assumes everyone has an employer covering most insurance costs; So subtract ESI contrib but add in OOP and the picture doesn't improve much if at all)
Individual vs. household earnings - "We've switched from one worker's earnings to household earnings. So now we're claiming credit for the added income of converting a stay-at-home parent into a wage earner... if the parent was working hard caring for children, managing the household, contributing to the community... well we've wiped those things out to get that extra income. So where do we account for all the lost utility from the non-market work? ... COTI's premise isn't to replace existing statistics but to provide an otherwise missing perspective that helps explain some of what standard views have missed."
posted by kliuless at 10:14 AM on March 2, 2020
Total compensation approach - "Include employer premium contributions in both expenses and incomes."
Health Plan Deductibles Triple in 10 Years - "This dramatic increase far exceeds the growth in income over the same time period, and it has occurred at the same time that insurance premiums have gone up as much as 50%. It has left more than half of all families with deductibles over $1,500 for individuals and $3,000 for families, while around one in five policyholders have a deductible of at least $3,000 per person and $5,000 per family."
Based on the latest Kaiser Family Foundation survey - "The average cost paid by employers for family coverage increased by over $10,000 since 1999. Since a $ spent on health benefits isn't available for wages, health care inflation drags down disposable income growth."
Arguing over the 'median' - "Health care costs are a huge problem but they're not so big that they're actually reducing real wages overall. Here are real median personal income, real median weekly earnings for full-time employees, and real hourly compensation." (That assumes everyone has an employer covering most insurance costs; So subtract ESI contrib but add in OOP and the picture doesn't improve much if at all)
Individual vs. household earnings - "We've switched from one worker's earnings to household earnings. So now we're claiming credit for the added income of converting a stay-at-home parent into a wage earner... if the parent was working hard caring for children, managing the household, contributing to the community... well we've wiped those things out to get that extra income. So where do we account for all the lost utility from the non-market work? ... COTI's premise isn't to replace existing statistics but to provide an otherwise missing perspective that helps explain some of what standard views have missed."
posted by kliuless at 10:14 AM on March 2, 2020
« Older A very French scandal | We Can't Have a Feminist Future Without Abolishing... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
So yeah, out of this huge post, I personally latched onto the idea that universal healthcare and at least a basic social safety net are as important (or more important) as raising wages.
In fact one great way that universal healthcare changes lives is that it removes the need to have a litigious society. If public healthcare takes care of you after an accident and then there is a safety net to make sure you are doing ok, you no longer need to get involved with endless lawsuits.
posted by Literaryhero at 3:59 AM on February 22, 2020 [30 favorites]