David Puddy Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204731804574387010241108256.html Consider the assertion, repeated often in different forms, that health insurance is a form of property, a matter of pure personal responsibility. Those who have insurance, the argument goes, have it because they've played by the rules. ... Those who don't have what they need, on the other hand, should have thought of that before they chose a toxic life of fast food and fast morals. This image of sturdy loners carving their way through a tough world is an attractive one. But there is no aspect of life where it makes less sense than health care. To begin with, we already pay for other people's health care; that's how insurance works, with customers guarding collectively against risks that none of them can afford to face individually. Our health-care dollars are well mingled already, with some of us paying in more than we consume while others use our money to secure medical services for themselves alone. The only truly individualistic health-care choice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC Devs Fan Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 A well written article but I get frustrated when we, as a society, are being told we have to take care of people who aren't making an effort to be a productive member of that society; that someone has the same rights as me simply because they were born then feel because they have set foot on this earth they should be taken care of. Before I get responses about how Joe the hardworking plumber can't afford his healthcare, that is not the person I am talking about; that person is doing his best to be a productive part of this society. Same is true with the disabled, we as a society have a duty to take care of them; we do not, in my opinion, have the duty to take care of the lazy and those who are born with a sense of entitlement. McDonalds doesn't pay alot to flip burgers, but it will provide your healthcare and pay you a wage that can be subsidized by the government so you can afford to live. It's a shame so many don't take jobs like that because they are beneath them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Puddy Posted September 2, 2009 Author Share Posted September 2, 2009 Do you support the "lazy" guy who sunk everything he had into a small business and failed? Do you support the guy who lost everything in the stock market? Do you support the guy who tries to change careers and goes bankrupt in the process? What's the litmus test? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squishyx Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 A well written article but I get frustrated when we, as a society, are being told we have to take care of people who aren't making an effort to be a productive member of that society; that someone has the same rights as me simply because they were born then feel because they have set foot on this earth they should be taken care of. Before I get responses about how Joe the hardworking plumber can't afford his healthcare, that is not the person I am talking about; that person is doing his best to be a productive part of this society. Same is true with the disabled, we as a society have a duty to take care of them; we do not, in my opinion, have the duty to take care of the lazy and those who are born with a sense of entitlement. McDonalds doesn't pay alot to flip burgers, but it will provide your healthcare and pay you a wage that can be subsidized by the government so you can afford to live. It's a shame so many don't take jobs like that because they are beneath them. I have never worked at MCD's. I assume however it's a little like Stop n Shop or Best Buy, places I have spent many years working. I would say 80-90% of the people I worked with had no health insurance or benefits what so ever because they were "part timers" who were only allowed to work 31 hours a week. Why 31? because at 32 they were required to give said benefits. Flipping burgers is not beneath most people, it's simply not a viable option. Minimum wage is what, 7.50 an hour? good luck living off less then 16k a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowdyFan42 Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Before I get responses about how Joe the hardworking plumber can't afford his healthcare, that is not the person I am talking about; that person is doing his best to be a productive part of this society. Same is true with the disabled, we as a society have a duty to take care of them; we do not, in my opinion, have the duty to take care of the lazy and those who are born with a sense of entitlement. However, it seems far too often that in your (general you, not specifically YOU) attempts to fvck over Latoya the welfare queen and Juan the illegal immigrant, you're also fvcking over Joe the plumber and Lisa the single mom with two jobs, and unfortunately it comes off as intentional even if it's not. That's why others feel the system needs to be changed, so that good people don't fall through the cracks because of some misfortune. I have never worked at MCD's. I assume however it's a little like Stop n Shop or Best Buy, places I have spent many years working. I would say 80-90% of the people I worked with had no health insurance or benefits what so ever because they were "part timers" who were only allowed to work 31 hours a week. Why 31? because at 32 they were required to give said benefits. Flipping burgers is not beneath most people, it's simply not a viable option. Minimum wage is what, 7.50 an hour? good luck living off less then 16k a year. Bulls-eye. When I worked for the Postal Service, I was a part-timer. They played the same game with hours, letting you work right up to the cutoff for benefits but not over. They also "fired" you for a week every year for the same reason; apparently benefits kicked in on your one-year anniversary or something like that. And postal workers have some of the strongest unions in the land (to tie this back to the other thread), but as long as the full-timers were taken care of and management didn't mistreat the part-timers or mess with their pay, I guess the union was willing to allow the concession of gaming the part-timers out of benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC Devs Fan Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Squish, read above; along with minimal pay would be a government subsidy instead of the government paying 100%. As for the hours, that's true, some places limit your hours; McD's doesn't, I can't speak for other places; I know because I know a number of guys who own McD's franchises and we have discussed this. As for Puddy's scenarios, certainly there isn't a well defined line, but I think all of those people, assuming they still try to put their lives back together and don't sit at home and feel sorry for themselves, would be eligible for care if I had druthers. If you try to open a business and fail and have to declare bankrupcy then I'm sorry for you - I really am - but you can't have risk/reward scenarios when there is no risk. That's why others feel the system needs to be changed, so that good people don't fall through the cracks because of some misfortune. I agree 100% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squishyx Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 (edited) Squish, read above; along with minimal pay would be a government subsidy instead of the government paying 100%. As for the hours, that's true, some places limit your hours; McD's doesn't, I can't speak for other places; I know because I know a number of guys who own McD's franchises and we have discussed this. I would imagine how MCD's are managed varies based on states and their laws, I know in New York benefits kick in around 32 hours per week (and some other qualifier, like 4 straight weeks at that rate). You may very well know franchise owners who do the right thing and give health insurance to all it's part time employee's, I doubt they do but it's not really the point. 16k a year is not a salary you could live off of. If i didn't have a roommate after taxes that wouldn't be enough for my yearly rent let alone gas, food, utilities and other basic requirements. Now if we raised minimum wage to something thats actually viable like 15$/hr then I think you solve a lot of problems and you could say that people should just go out and buy health care on their own. I think that's more reasonable. But no one is going to go for that, and a livable wage depends greatly on where you live, but I hope we can all agree that $16k a year doesn't work for anyone. Wages have a lot to do with our problems as a whole, I consider them very much linked. This distribution of wealth in this country is pretty ridiculous, the 2007 IRS returns came out a little while ago. Out of 142 million Americans who filed, the average salary is $61,000 while the median salary was around $35,000. That's a huge difference, ideally you want those numbers to be very close to have an even distribution. This does not mean everyone should make the same salary, it means the rich are getting more then their "fair" share of the pie, one of the reasons they have to pay more then their "fair" share of the taxes. Edited September 2, 2009 by squishyx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devilish34 Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Do you support the "lazy" guy who sunk everything he had into a small business and failed? Do you support the guy who lost everything in the stock market? Do you support the guy who tries to change careers and goes bankrupt in the process? What's the litmus test? He means the people who don't give a sh!t and would sooner sit on their asses and not even try. Or hangout on the corner and deal drugs ect ect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC Devs Fan Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Now if we raised minimum wage to something thats actually viable like 15$/hr then I think you solve a lot of problems $15 an hour? Minimum wage? Seriously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 $15 an hour? Minimum wage? Seriously? Imagine how many less jobs would exist then. Everyone makes 30k minimum at a full time job but more people lack any job whatsoever then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squishyx Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 (edited) $15 an hour? Minimum wage? Seriously? It's about 30k a year (I eyeballed it, might be a little more) which I think is the starting point if you want to have real tangible discussions on how much money you need to make in order to pay for a house / rent, utils, food, health care etc. I think it's far below what you need to make to afford all those things, but they seem pretty basic to me. You could exempt part time workers if thats the part that seems outrageous, but thats tricky, you need to weed out somehow the college kids and seniors who only want to work a few hours a week and people who have a PT job because they can't find anything else. I didn't say it was going to happen although in 10-20 years I'm sure it will be close. Imagine how many less jobs would exist then. Everyone makes 30k minimum at a full time job but more people lack any job whatsoever then. If you are making that direct connection, should we lower minimum wage to reduce unemployment? I think you are also underestimating capitalism, all these people will have a lot more money then they had before, they will spend and invest spurring more growth in other sectors creating new jobs etc etc. Edited September 2, 2009 by squishyx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Wages have a lot to do with our problems as a whole, I consider them very much linked. This distribution of wealth in this country is pretty ridiculous, the 2007 IRS returns came out a little while ago. Out of 142 million Americans who filed, the average salary is $61,000 while the median salary was around $35,000. That's a huge difference, ideally you want those numbers to be very close to have an even distribution. This does not mean everyone should make the same salary, it means the rich are getting more then their "fair" share of the pie, one of the reasons they have to pay more then their "fair" share of the taxes. So if the average salary was 30k and the median salary was 31k you would think things were better? Who decides what is fair? I'm sure the guy generating tons of value to his company wouldn't find it fair if he wasn't allowed to make very much to ensure that there are similar amounts of large wage earners compared to low wage earners. It only makes sense that the average is going to be greater than the mean because there are a lot more menial jobs than fantastic jobs. There are only so many people who can go to Harvard Law and make fabulous amounts of money while there is an almost endless supply of cashier jobs making very little. There is a earnings floor that nobody can go below and file taxes while there is no earning ceiling so average is always going to be higher than median since the outliers are always going to be on the high side and never on the low side. To determine what spread is "fair" or not "fair" based on average and median salaries seems ridiculous to me since it's just wanting to decrease the outliers on the high side without saying why those people don't deserve to be outliers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 (edited) If you are making that direct connection, should we lower minimum wage to reduce unemployment? There is a direct connections and yes, I would be for lower minimum wages. Companies will have jobs if the person their hiring adds more value than the cost to pay the person. Once the minimum wage goes over the threshold of value for a job position the company will do away with that position because it's value negative to the company. National Minimum Wage is strange in concept anyway since living expenses vary greatly around the country. So the NYC minimum wage should always be higher than the boonies of Alabama minimum wage, if the concept is to make sure people are getting a minimum fair amount of pay, but with flat minimum pay the person in Alabama is being paid a higher amount of buying power than the person in NYC. I think you are also underestimating capitalism, all these people will have a lot more money then they had before, they will spend and invest spurring more growth in other sectors creating new jobs etc etc. The same amount of money is going to be in the system either way. 2 people making 7.50 an hour or 1 person making 15 an hour is still 30 dollars in the economy. How many fast food companies could support the number of employees they currently have if their pay doubled? How many places would have to close because they couldn't afford to pay enough employees to make the place function smoothly? Edited September 2, 2009 by Devils731 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devilish34 Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 $15 lol your crazy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squishyx Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 I don't know why you think it's so crazy... http://www.fivecentnickel.com/2008/07/25/the-federal-minimum-wage-looking-back-over-time/ Consider in the last 15 years min wage has doubled, I think it's entirely likely it will double again in the same time frame. Had Min wage risen with inflation all along it would be near $15/hr I suppose a more realistic amount would be something around the poverty line which is about $10-11/hr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squishyx Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 There is a direct connections and yes, I would be for lower minimum wages. Companies will have jobs if the person their hiring adds more value than the cost to pay the person. Once the minimum wage goes over the threshold of value for a job position the company will do away with that position because it's value negative to the company. National Minimum Wage is strange in concept anyway since living expenses vary greatly around the country. So the NYC minimum wage should always be higher than the boonies of Alabama minimum wage, if the concept is to make sure people are getting a minimum fair amount of pay, but with flat minimum pay the person in Alabama is being paid a higher amount of buying power than the person in NYC. Most states have their own min wage anyway as I'm sure you are aware, but I agree that it does vary greatly on where you live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squishyx Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 So if the average salary was 30k and the median salary was 31k you would think things were better? Who decides what is fair? I'm sure the guy generating tons of value to his company wouldn't find it fair if he wasn't allowed to make very much to ensure that there are similar amounts of large wage earners compared to low wage earners. It only makes sense that the average is going to be greater than the mean because there are a lot more menial jobs than fantastic jobs. There are only so many people who can go to Harvard Law and make fabulous amounts of money while there is an almost endless supply of cashier jobs making very little. In an even distribution you would have this parity, for every well paying awesome job you would have a sh!tty job and the bulk of jobs would be average paying average wage and the median workers would make near this average. We more or less agree with the result few people have a large sum of money, well outside normal distribution patterns. I guess we just differ on what the word "fair" means in this context. There is a earnings floor that nobody can go below and file taxes while there is no earning ceiling so average is always going to be higher than median since the outliers are always going to be on the high side and never on the low side. To determine what spread is "fair" or not "fair" based on average and median salaries seems ridiculous to me since it's just wanting to decrease the outliers on the high side without saying why those people don't deserve to be outliers. The earnings floor has little to do with the distribution in this case. Less then 2 million people make under $10k, having no minimum wage would certainly lower some peoples salaries, but not enough to bring parity. Overall wages would probably fall even for people who make well above minimum wage but it wouldn't fall enough to close the distribution gap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC Devs Fan Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 In an even distribution you would have this parity, for every well paying awesome job you would have a sh!tty job and the bulk of jobs would be average paying average wage and the median workers would make near this average. Please comrade squish... your definition of fair is that the middle 95% of the country makes the same while only those who are superheroes can make more money. I believe a flight to Russia is still pretty reasonable, you might even get the government controlled healthcare you lust for. I love how you discount accomplishment and hard work and want most people to be lumped together. Nothing boosts a work ethic like knowing you'll be rewarded just for showing up. As for $15 an hour, do we also give corresponding increases to every worker? After all, if it takes you 10 years to get to 15 an hour it isn't really fair if you hire people there. Unless, of course, we are just trying to pay evryone the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squishyx Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 (edited) Please comrade squish... your definition of fair is that the middle 95% of the country makes the same while only those who are superheroes can make more money. I believe a flight to Russia is still pretty reasonable, you might even get the government controlled healthcare you lust for. 0-3. I even went out of my way to say before I do not believe we should have a society where everyone makes the same amount because I figured someone might be that thick headed on disingenuous enough to interpret my remarks that way. In order to balance median to mean you just need to have an even amount above and below the middle. So you can still have the super rich More over, I love this country, and I am proud to live here. Not because we are a capitalist nation, but because we are the epitome of a democracy. And in a democracy the majority rules. If the majority thinks the rich are fine and don't need to be taxed more then so be it, if the majority don't support health care reform so be it. I am all for discussion and ideas on why something might be good or bad for this country and fine with settling on the fact that sometimes two people just disagree on an issue, that's part of having a democracy too. Maybe you should leave if you don't like it? I love how you discount accomplishment and hard work and want most people to be lumped together. Nothing boosts a work ethic like knowing you'll be rewarded just for showing up. I said nothing of the sort. 0-4. What would be amazing is if we had a system that paid based on how hard you work but that's not actually tangible. Our system rewards some of the people who work really hard but not all, not even most. Need proof? I think you would have to be a pretty big prick to say the majority of Americans don't work hard, but as you can see from median wage they aren't reward accordingly. The rich who work hard deserve to be rich, just not as rich as they are. Thats just my opinion. As for $15 an hour, do we also give corresponding increases to every worker? After all, if it takes you 10 years to get to 15 an hour it isn't really fair if you hire people there. Unless, of course, we are just trying to pay evryone the same. Interesting idea. Recently min wage rose about 20%, did you see a corresponding raise? I know I sure didn't. I think your theory is fair, it's probably what companies should do, but as history shows us it isn't what they will do. Edited September 2, 2009 by squishyx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC Devs Fan Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 (edited) 0-3. I even went out of my way to say before I do not believe we should have a society where everyone makes the same amount because I figured someone might be that thick headed on disingenuous enough to interpret my remarks that way. In order to balance median to mean you just need to have an even amount above and below the middle. So you can still have the super rich Gee, I miss where you went out of your way to say that. Then again, using your math skills you start at 0-3. And you add to my quote things I didn't say. Ah, the joy of mediocrity. EDIT : you corrected your mistake. As for the points I'm quoted on but never said, in your democracy theory where the poor can determine the fate of the rich, why would somone making minumum wage not vote to increase it to $20 and hour, because he is looking out for the welfare of the Country? Do you think if you ask 100 people who make minumum wage and ask them if you increased taxes on the wealthy so they could make more money that a majority would ever say no? If you ask them should anyone be allowed to make $100,000 a year while they struggle to make it that they would say it is fair? 0Interesting idea. Recently min wage rose about 20%, did you see a corresponding raise? I work for myself. I get what is leftover after I pay the bills. Edited September 2, 2009 by SC Devs Fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squishyx Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 (edited) Gee, I miss where you went out of your way to say that. Then again, using your math skills you start at 0-3. And you add to my quote things I didn't say. Ah, the joy of mediocrity. It's your daily count overall, that was a little vague. Thats 0 for 2 in this thread when you try to speak for me, maybe you should quit while behind. Big business is not evil, however I do believe big business will put profits ahead of employee's when it can. Never the less can we stop going down this road? I don't appreciate it when you attribute your extreme examples as if it was something I said, and more over you are just terrible at trying to interpret how I view something so maybe just stop? SC can speak for SC and Squish can speak for Squish, it seems pretty juvenile on both our parts. EDIT : you corrected your mistake. Yup, sorry I put my response in your quote by accident. As for the points I'm quoted on but never said, in your democracy theory where the poor can determine the fate of the rich, why would somone making minumum wage not vote to increase it to $20 and hour, because he is looking out for the welfare of the Country? Do you think if you ask 100 people who make minumum wage and ask them if you increased taxes on the wealthy so they could make more money that a majority would ever say no? If you ask them should anyone be allowed to make $100,000 a year while they struggle to make it that they would say it is fair? Thats democracy, love it or leave it. None of your examples are realistic because if they were change would have already happened. People seem to like the idea of the super rich, it keeps them content and working hard. So thats what we have. A government for the people, by the people. I work for myself. I get what is leftover after I pay the bills. I think you missed my point. Edited September 2, 2009 by squishyx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 In an even distribution you would have this parity, for every well paying awesome job you would have a sh!tty job and the bulk of jobs would be average paying average wage and the median workers would make near this average. We more or less agree with the result few people have a large sum of money, well outside normal distribution patterns. I guess we just differ on what the word "fair" means in this context. That's effectively impossible. One sh!tty job making 10k, which is basically the worst job you can have and still have to file, does not balance out Chris Pronger making 8 million dollars. We already have a lot of parity considering there are outliers who make 200 times the median, Harrison Ford banked like 65 million last year, and yet the average is only 2 times greater. The downside outliers are much closer to the mean and median than the upside outliers meaning the distribution is fairly closely packed since the outliers on the upside have a much greater individual impact than the outliers on the downside do. A downside outlier can only be 50k less than the average, so it can be 80% different than the average, at most, while the upside outlier, say Harrison Ford, can be 108,233% greater and so has a much greater affect on the average, even though he is only one person. So his one awesome paying job requires tons of sh!tty and normal jobs to balance out just to get to the 60k/30k difference we have now. The more you want parity the less awesome paying jobs you can have because they affect they average too much on an individual basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Puddy Posted September 3, 2009 Author Share Posted September 3, 2009 (edited) Please comrade squish... It took 18 posts for the first name-calling. Is this a PRW record?! Edited September 3, 2009 by David Puddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC Devs Fan Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 It took 18 posts for the first name-calling. Is this a PRW record?! I guess if callign a socialist a socialist is name calling then the name calling has begun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devilish34 Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 take that $15 minimum wage job a see what that does to your comp numbers. Theres more to it than just what you think you see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts