minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good

[rocket surgeon]

  "tens of millions of people out of work, who will eat at the restaurants? "  ?????

well the cashiers union ought to be ashamed of themselves


all yous people arguing for living wages, equal pay, eliminating poverty, etc etc.  do you really think we will ever achieve anything even close?  i mean, it's always good, ethical and the right thing to do, to help the less fortunate and i believe everyone here tries to do their own part in their own ways, but many of you are arguing that we need to do it at someone else's expense.  and don't start on the "fair share" thing because the gubmint is already TAKING more than they need.  it's all the waste that drives me crazy.  so many of our pols use our tax money to enrich themselves by using the "golden rule" to continue to get re-elected and on and on.  yeah, i wanna see more shrimp on treadmill studies and $43 million on cng conversion gas stations in pakistan...and we are in debt? 

    The John Murtha Johnstown-Cambria County Airport has an impressive $18 million runway made of reinforced concrete that's big enough to land any airplane in North America. The airport also has a $7 million air traffic control tower, a $14 million hanger and $8 million radar. Most of the time, the only thing the airport doesn't have is airplanes.

this snipet from ABC news-
"An average of just 20 people a day flew out of the Murtha Airport last year. But, the airport was just awarded more federal money -- $800,000 in stimulus funds to repave an alternate runway.
Located in Johnston, Pa., 56 miles from Pittsburgh, the Murtha Airport is a monument to the power of Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who has steered some $150 million in taxpayer dollars to the airport over the last decade."

[warriorchick]

Good stuff chick.  Really enjoyed the article. The stuff on basic income was interesting....and it even connected back to the original topic! I love the idea in theory but can't imagine something like that ever being passed in the US. The studies they reference seem to contradict the narrative that handouts lead to lazy poor.

Even as someone who considers herself a fiscal conservative, I find the idea of basic income intriguing, especially if that includes the premise that literally everyone gets it (from Donald Trump on down) and all other entitlement programs are completely eliminated.  It would likely be far less expensive than our current programs to administer.  Here are the main issues I see with it:

1.  How much does a child get?  If an adult gets, say, $20K a year, do you get $20K for each kid you pop out as well?  Is it a sliding scale based on  the age of your child?
2.  What would be the cultural and societal ramifications of having tens of millions of able-bodied adults that have literally nothing to do all day?  As the say, an idle mind [and body, for that matter], is the devil's playground.
3.  How long before we start making exceptions and additions to the basic income for certain people until we are right back to where we started, with dozens of specialized programs with their own bureaucracies and set asides?

[mu03eng]

Even as someone who considers herself a fiscal conservative, I find the idea of basic income intriguing, especially if that includes the premise that literally everyone gets it (from Donald Trump on down) and all other entitlement programs are completely eliminated.  It would likely be far less expensive than our current programs to administer.  Here are the main issues I see with it:

1.  How much does a child get?  If an adult gets, say, $20K a year, do you get $20K for each kid you pop out as well?  Is it a sliding scale based on  the age of your child?
2.  What would be the cultural and societal ramifications of having tens of millions of able-bodied adults that have literally nothing to do all day?  As the say, an idle mind [and body, for that matter], is the devil's playground.
3.  How long before we start making exceptions and additions to the basic income for certain people until we are right back to where we started, with dozens of specialized programs with their own bureaucracies and set asides?

As essentially a libertarian and fiscal conservative I too am intrigued by the concept of basic income. I agree with all you said but my biggest concern is that for it to work society has to say this is what you get and no more. Spend all your money, too bad get some work there isn't anymore. As soon as stories surface of people starving in the street, we're right back to where we were before.

On the flip side I could see it really freeing up innovation. Could you imagine if Einstein hadn't needed to be a patent clerk?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

On the flip side I could see it really freeing up innovation. Could you imagine if Einstein hadn't needed to be a patent clerk?

Then we wouldn't know Einstein at all!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkMiWH4n1lw

[forgetful]

I agree, at the end of the day, technology and automation will create more jobs than it eliminates.  Most of them don't exist now and many of them have not even been thought of.  Like eBay sellers, YouTube personalities, Uber drivers, Airbnb, task rabbit, etc. ... before connected computers even if it was proven you returned in a time machine from the future, past generations would not believe these could be actual jobs.  Likewise, the new jobs that technology will create, that your grandkids might have, you cannot even imagine today.

But first, comes the productivity increases and the loss of existing jobs first, then comes the creation.  See the rapid adopt rates of new technology.  What different this time is the automation will come fast and the existing jobs will disappear fast.  The new jobs will come to slower.,

In 1900, 50% of all jobs were on a farm.  In 2000 it was less than 2%.  This took generations.  Today's automation could do the same to the economy but now in just a few years.

We don't agree.  I don't see any reason why new jobs would not be automated at all. 

Other major transitions (agricultural to industrial) created a shift in the economic landscape.  Mechanical tools could perform agricultural work better than us, and crop yields went up...but all the tools needed to be made by man.  We've had a slow transition where industry has gradually become automated, and we have lost manufacturing jobs in the process, which has led us to a current problem in much of the country. 

When automation is fully implemented, there are few if any jobs that cannot be completed by robotics/automation.  So new jobs may be created, but they will not require manual labor.  They will also be performed by automation/robotics. 

The only reason this doesn't happen is if the people in charge deem it too dangerous to have people not working (idle hands), and create labor to keep them busy.

[MU82]

Back in 1980 or so, my best friend at MU wrote a philosophy paper titled something like: "Computers ... They Must Be Destroyed!"

Who knew he'd turn out to have been right?

[warriorchick]

Back in 1980 or so, my best friend at MU wrote a philosophy paper titled something like: "Computers ... They Must Be Destroyed!"

Who knew he'd turn out to have been right?

[MU82]

Nice.

And now that I think of it, the paper was titled "Computers ... They Must Be Stopped."

(Management apologizes for the inconvenience.)

[Jockey]

Ted Kaczynski on technology:

“The system does not and cannot exist to satisfy human needs. Instead, it is human behavior that has to be modified to fit the needs of the system. This has nothing to do with the political or social ideology that may pretend to guide the technological system. It is the fault of technology, because the system is guided not by ideology but by technical necessity.”


He may have been nuts, but he wasn't crazy.

[Jockey]

One of the funny things(not haha funny but ironic funny) is that right now, fully one-third of US citizens are on some form of government health insurance (Medicare or Medicaid), I even found an article that indicates that half of all health insurance is government-based (though I'm dubious of the source). Let's assume the 1/3 number is more accurate....if the healthcare system is broken or not working then those programs have to be at least partially responsible for the break, however reforming or changing those programs seems to be a non-starter.

There is no doubt those programs provide a necessary service (I have nephews that receive necessary care from programs supported by medicaid that would otherwise be unavailable) however, they have somehow transformed from providing extraordinary care to providing standard care which reduces the effectiveness of the overall system. So for every kid that needs services for say autism there are adults who are using it for standard healthcare delivery for various reasons. This trajectory is unsustrightble.


http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/medicaid-and-medicare-enrollees-now-outnumber-full-time-private-sector-workers

You bring up a very interesting subject. The question, I guess, is why so many are on gov't assistance.

I would posit that the people who complain about the high number on gov't assistance are the exact same people who worked for decades to destroy unions - the very institution that provided medical insurance to millions of families for decades. So after working so hard then (just as they do now) to prevent families from having medical insurance, what did they think would take its place?

Why should families like the Waltons become billionaires 50 or 60 times over by paying such low wages that we taxpayers have to provide insurance for THEIR employees? Low wages and schedules that leave most employees short of hours to get insurance provided by the company force the majority of their people to look to the government to provide them with basic care.

[rocket surgeon]

  " Low wages and schedules that leave most employees short of hours to get insurance provided by the company force the majority of their people to look to the government to provide them with basic care."

  wasn't one of the main reasons for triggering cuts in hours, full time to part time due to obamacare?  the employer mandate to provide health insurance to full time workers-30 hours or more triggered employers to get as many people below the 30 hour/week threshold

[Macallan 18]

On the flip side I could see it really freeing up innovation. Could you imagine if Einstein hadn't needed to be a patent clerk?

There was an interesting article about a program the Canadian government did between 1974 and 1979 in which they gave a basic income guarantee (BIG) to an entire town.

Here is an article about it - https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/nze99z/the-mincome-experiment-dauphin

Some recipients used the money to pay for essentials; others used it as supplementary income to purchase things that could help them increase their earning potential, like new vehicles. One major benefit of the program was a sense of security, potentially counteracting the sort of worrying that can​weigh heavily on the minds of the poor.

Some participants commented that knowing they had a set amount of money coming in made them more likely to try things like starting a new business as they would still be getting paid if the business was slow to start or ended up failing.

[CTWarrior]

Ted Kaczynski on technology:

“The system does not and cannot exist to satisfy human needs. Instead, it is human behavior that has to be modified to fit the needs of the system. This has nothing to do with the political or social ideology that may pretend to guide the technological system. It is the fault of technology, because the system is guided not by ideology but by technical necessity.”


He may have been nuts, but he wasn't crazy.

Was cleaning out the bookshelf two weekends ago and came across Eating the Dinosaur by Chuck Klosterman that I had never read.  I finished it this past weekend and it devoted a chapter to Ted Kazcynski's manifesto (or whatever you would call it) and said he made a lot of sense in many areas regarding man's relationship to technology.  Klosterman pointed out that the method he used to get people to read was of course the method of a nut job, though he said it much more eloquently than did I.  Anyway, fairly interesting and easy read about how people treat the truth, effect of media, etc.

[B. McBannerson]

Yes, major fraud. Just because the PR department has an excuse handy, defrauding taxpayers out of millions and millions of dollars is major fraud.

If a "welfare queen" did something 1/10,000th as bad, it would be Major, Major, Major Fraud to many, and they'd want to lock her up.

$1.3 Billion in fraud potentially found, largest in US history?  Gov't going after over 400 people  Everyone needs their day in court so let us see how it is resolved.  If they are found guilty, you don't think it is a good idea to send a message to others that this will not be tolerated anymore? That the $1.3Billion should go to the people that really need it?  Go after the corporations and the individuals I say.

http://nation.foxnews.com/2017/07/13/largest-health-care-fraud-takedown-us-history-412-people-charged-schemes-worth-13-billion

[MU82]

$1.3 Billion in fraud potentially found, largest in US history?  Gov't going after over 400 people  Everyone needs their day in court so let us see how it is resolved.  If they are found guilty, you don't think it is a good idea to send a message to others that this will not be tolerated anymore? That the $1.3Billion should go to the people that really need it?  Go after the corporations and the individuals I say.

http://nation.foxnews.com/2017/07/13/largest-health-care-fraud-takedown-us-history-412-people-charged-schemes-worth-13-billion

Yes, I saw this story earlier today, and of course I think they should be punished. All of these accused are doctors, nurses and pharmacists.

Again, if a welfare queen commits "fraud" so she can get $10 extra per week to feed her kids, many want to lock her up. But that problem is so overblown, with the Reagan-era scaremongering starting much of it. It is the large-scale fraud we should be going after first, second and third - the insiders (as in this probe), the corporations, etc.

I'll be interested in following this case to see what actually becomes of it, to see if jail time is actually meted out, and to see if the powerful people of means see one day in jail.

[Lennys Tap]

Yes, I saw this story earlier today, and of course I think they should be punished. All of these accused are doctors, nurses and pharmacists.

Again, if a welfare queen commits "fraud" so she can get $10 extra per week to feed her kids, many want to lock her up. But that problem is so overblown, with the Reagan-era scaremongering starting much of it. It is the large-scale fraud we should be going after first, second and third - the insiders (as in this probe), the corporations, etc.

I'll be interested in following this case to see what actually becomes of it, to see if jail time is actually meted out, and to see if the powerful people of means see one day in jail.

The larger point you're missing is that duping the bureaucrats running a monopoly that doesn't have a bottom line that has to be met is way easier than defrauding people in a relatively transparent, competitive and free market. If governments squander our money due to inefficiencies or fraud they just take more $ to cover the losses. Businesses under those conditions cease to operate.

[forgetful]

The larger point you're missing is that duping the bureaucrats running a monopoly that doesn't have a bottom line that has to be met is way easier than defrauding people in a relatively transparent, competitive and free market. If governments squander our money due to inefficiencies or fraud they just take more $ to cover the losses. Businesses under those conditions cease to operate.

The larger point you're missing is that Health Care is not a transparent, competitive and free market.  Health care agencies fraudulently tae our money due to greed.  They do not cease to operate, because health care is a need and is not governed by a free market. 

This $1.3B case is a drop in the bucket compared to much of what is going on in this country.  I know many people that are aware of health care providers committing fraud, that do not report it for fear that the insurance companies will come after them for the money and/or they will have a hard time finding another doctor to treat them for ongoing medical conditions...often involving pain management. 

I also know of people that did report the fraud to the health care organization, that were then blacklisted from treatment everywhere else.

Anyone more worried about welfare queens, then corporate/healthcare fraud has their head in the sand.

[Pakuni]

The larger point you're missing is that duping the bureaucrats running a monopoly that doesn't have a bottom line that has to be met is way easier than defrauding people in a relatively transparent, competitive and free market. If governments squander our money due to inefficiencies or fraud they just take more $ to cover the losses. Businesses under those conditions cease to operate.

Ever hear of AIG? GM? Chrysler (twice)? TARP? The Savings and Loan industry? Bear Stearns?

The notion that it's only government that can get away with squandering money due to inefficiencies and fraud without ceasing to exist is plainly false. It's equally false that it's only government that takes more of our $ to cover the losses. Corporations do it to the tune of billions of dollars. They just need their friends in Washington to serve as their bagmen.

And that's not even going into how the government offering protection via bankruptcy to businesses that fail due to inefficiencies and fraud turns into added costs for us consumers.

To be clear, I'm not arguing for or against any particular bailout ... that's a whole other debate. Just pointing out that the notion that businesses fail due to fraud, inefficiency, etc., often are allowed to survive at a high cost to taxpayers.

[mu03eng]

The larger point you're missing is that Health Care is not a transparent, competitive and free market.  Health care agencies fraudulently tae our money due to greed.  They do not cease to operate, because health care is a need and is not governed by a free market. 

Healthcare is not governed by a free market because that is the way the government has set it up. Yes, healthcare is a need but so is food, we manage to purchase that on a relatively free market without issue, healthcare should be on the same type of spectrum.

I know there was a bunch of debate about free market vs socialism and I'm going to avoid some of that absolutism in this response (not saying you are doing that)

I view this stuff on a spectrum with absolute free market(no government at all, libertarian wet dream) on one end and absolute socialism(single payer, super liberal wet dream). Currently, IMO healthcare as it is constructed is skewed far to close to the socialism end and needs to move closer to free market. There are far too many artificial mechanisms that result in poor healthcare results and/or inefficiencies in the market. One of the easiest examples is competition across state lines.

Examples of ways to make healthcare more truly free market:
-Eliminate state based definition of healthcare requirements (allow insurance to compete across state lines)
-Treat healthcare provided by companies to employees as revenue and tax it accordingly
-Eliminate companies ability to self insure, this will require individuals to purchase their own insurance on the market.....additionally it should make insurance truly portable as the individual is buying it not the company.

These things will never happen, but a boy can dream.

[mu03eng]

Ever hear of AIG? GM? Chrysler (twice)? TARP? The Savings and Loan industry? Bear Stearns?

The notion that it's only government that can get away with squandering money due to inefficiencies and fraud without ceasing to exist is plainly false. It's equally false that it's only government that takes more of our $ to cover the losses. Corporations do it to the tune of billions of dollars. They just need their friends in Washington to serve as their bagmen.

And that's not even going into how the government offering protection via bankruptcy to businesses that fail due to inefficiencies and fraud turns into added costs for us consumers.

To be clear, I'm not arguing for or against any particular bailout ... that's a whole other debate. Just pointing out that the notion that businesses fail due to fraud, inefficiency, etc., often are allowed to survive at a high cost to taxpayers.

Those are largely one offs, there isn't a systemic policy of government stepping in to save a company from it's own mistakes, especially those involving fraud (WorldCom, Enron, etc).

And companies have no bankruptcy protection is loss is associated with fraud they committed.

[Lennys Tap]

Ever hear of AIG? GM? Chrysler (twice)? TARP? The Savings and Loan industry? Bear Stearns?

The notion that it's only government that can get away with squandering money due to inefficiencies and fraud without ceasing to exist is plainly false. It's equally false that it's only government that takes more of our $ to cover the losses. Corporations do it to the tune of billions of dollars. They just need their friends in Washington to serve as their bagmen.

And that's not even going into how the government offering protection via bankruptcy to businesses that fail due to inefficiencies and fraud turns into added costs for us consumers.

To be clear, I'm not arguing for or against any particular bailout ... that's a whole other debate. Just pointing out that the notion that businesses fail due to fraud, inefficiency, etc., often are allowed to survive at a high cost to taxpayers.

As I've said on many occasions, the unholy alliance between big business and big government also takes accountability away from some favored businesses or corporations within those businesses. I'm just as against those situations that create a lack of accountability to consumers from corporations bailed out by government as I am by the lack of accountability by government itself.

[Pakuni]

Healthcare is not governed by a free market because that is the way the government has set it up. Yes, healthcare is a need but so is food, we manage to purchase that on a relatively free market without issue, healthcare should be on the same type of spectrum.

Of course, the federal government spends about $25 billion a year subsidizing farm operations, often in such a way that encourages a certain type of food production over another (i.e. much of the subsidies go to farmers growing animal-feed crops, little of it goes to those growing fruits).

Regardless, food isn't a great analogy here. Not many (any) people are required to purchase food in a situation in which the lives of themselves or a family member is in immediate peril. If you show up to your local grocery store and the cut of steak you were looking for is too expensive, you aren't going to die. Nobody's child's life has been decided by whether or not they can afford a certain type of cereal. Nobody has to spend thousands of dollars in advance to purchase healthcare in case they need it in the future, only to face denial from the supermarket when it comes time to pick up the groceries. Nobody walks into a grocery store and is denied service because of what they had previously eaten.

Examples of ways to make healthcare more truly free market:
-Eliminate state based definition of healthcare requirements (allow insurance to compete across state lines)

Agreed.

-Treat healthcare provided by companies to employees as revenue and tax it accordingly
-Eliminate companies ability to self insure, this will require individuals to purchase their own insurance on the market.....additionally it should make insurance truly portable as the individual is buying it not the company.

These things appear to be mammoth taxes/cost impositions upon workers. Or are you assuming that companies will automatically transfer their healthcare costs into wages? If so, that's a pretty large assumption.

[Pakuni]

Those are largely one offs, there isn't a systemic policy of government stepping in to save a company from it's own mistakes, especially those involving fraud (WorldCom, Enron, etc).

With all due respect, it's way off to suggest these are "one offs" when there were 972 recipients of just TARP funding. Chrysler alone has been bailed out twice. The S&L bailout involved hundreds of institutions.

And companies have no bankruptcy protection is loss is associated with fraud they committed.

What about inefficiencies?

[mu03eng]

With all due respect, it's way off to suggest these are "one offs" when there were 972 recipients of just TARP funding. Chrysler alone has been bailed out twice. The S&L bailout involved hundreds of institutions.
What about inefficiencies?

I'm talking about TARP being a one off. The government was the one that chose to bail those companies out, it's not like it's codified in regulations or something.

And yes companies can escape inefficiencies but so can I As a private citizen via bankruptcy.

[mu03eng]

These things appear to be mammoth taxes/cost impositions upon workers. Or are you assuming that companies will automatically transfer their healthcare costs into wages? If so, that's a pretty large assumption.

I don't think it's all that large an assumption simply because it just becomes part of the salary competition that already goes on. Additionally, companies will save money simply by not having to have infrastructure and bureaucracy to manage that portion of their compensation package.