Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[EuchreJack]

The real issue is the drug companies and insurance companies giving briefcases of money to politicians, but whatever...

[Maximum Spin]

Why do you say that unemployment benefits and social security increases the deficit, but letting insurance companies milk the public coffers because the government is legally unable to safeguard its financial interests is not increasing the deficit and "lol you can't change it it's immutable you're just moving stuff about why no know economics 4head?"

Protip: I didn't say that.

I said that the mentioned plan doesn't put any more real value in the hands of consumers, which the other guy claimed it would. Like any policy, it has winners and losers, and since it does not create any actual new wealth, it can only break even at best.

Now, I'll also say that the effect of insurance companies "milking the public coffers" is minimal if any, which you can easily determine by looking at the actual government budget, or the balance sheets of health insurance companies. An appreciation of the actual scale of the numbers involved helps.

[Maximum Spin]

Let me put it like this.

According to DoL statistics, the health insurance sector employs hundreds of thousands — over half a million! — people directly, in the US. This doesn't count the office janitors, air conditioning technicians, IT support, database management consultants, window washers, contract lawyers, financial consultants, building managers, security guards, etc. employed to keep all the specifically insurance-related business flowing smoothly, or any of their wives, husbands, kids, pet-sitters, trendy uptown baristas, housekeepers, or gardeners.

I know for a fact, from personal experience, that health insurance billing and data entry is a popular job for middle-aged women with mild to severe disabilities that limit their capacity for work, who like to be able to do unstrenuous clerical work, often from their own homes, more or less at their own schedule, many of whom have dependent kids or (or and!) are supporting husbands "between jobs".

Yes, the insurance industry is a nightmarish bureaucratic quagmire that absorbs labor for the generation of paperwork, but do you understand the economic ramifications of unleashing all these people on a stagnant job market with no plan, with the Fed promising rate increases and a recession looming? Or do you expect to pay them all the same amount, or more, for the same (widely acknowledged to be largely unnecessary) work or none, in which case not only haven't you saved any money, you've grafted the entire insurance industry into a new line item in the Congressional budget to expand at will?

[Micro102]

The fact that the wealth inequality in America has been growing, and the ever growing amount of money being spent on politicians, demonstrates that there are exploits that allow people to avoid their fair share of taxes, and instead just keep pooling assets under their ownership. These people aren't dumping money on politicians because of charity. They expect money back, and they have gotten it.

And since there are ways to avoid taxes for the super rich(here is a cool pamphlet listing some of the ways), we know that putting money in the hands of the poor will cause it to be spent more, and is more likely to be spent in the country. That money will be hit by sales tax and income tax again, and will simply contribute more to the deficit than another company that manages to pay 0 income tax next year. And the money being in the hands of millions as compared to 1, means a lot less bribery.

unleashing all these people on a stagnant job market with no plan

Well if you just assume the worse then of course things will go poorly. Of course congress should make a plan and not just rip healthcare insurance out of the economy. Many if not all of the jobs you listed exist for the sake of any business, not just insurance, and any slack cut off of insurance companies can be filled by other businesses (which should probably be subsidized as part of the plan).

Also, your argument can be worked backwards. "These jobs may just be a bureaucratic mess that just generates paperwork, but they provide jobs!" turns into "It's ok to make up pointless jobs for the sake of said jobs". If we can do the same amount of work with less people then that should just be a net benefit for everyone. Get angry at whatever is telling you that's not going to happen, rather than the efficiency itself.

And finally, the job market is not stagnant. Unemployment is at it's lowest in decades as is the unemployed people per vacancies. And this is despite corporations like train industry trying to run on skeleton crews working 7 days a week with no sick days. If you want to argue that eventually it will become stagnant, well then wait until it's not stagnant, and then do it. We don't need to fix all of America's problems at the least convenient moment.

[Maximum Spin]

Also, your argument can be worked backwards. "These jobs may just be a bureaucratic mess that just generates paperwork, but they provide jobs!" turns into "It's ok to make up pointless jobs for the sake of said jobs". If we can do the same amount of work with less people then that should just be a net benefit for everyone. Get angry at whatever is telling you that's not going to happen, rather than the efficiency itself.

No, the existence of a hole you can't easily climb back out of is not a reason to jump down more holes.

The insurance industry is what, in physics, is called an energy well, specifically one with a barrier: there's a cost to getting in (the deadweight loss of productive labor diverted into paperwork), but it costs more to get back out. I am absolutely in favor of digging out of the well, I'm just telling you it involves a cost. It's not a magic way to fix the economy, which, let me remind you, is what you said it would be in the post that started off this argument:

We should at the very least start with the obvious changes. Convert to a single payer universal healthcare, cut the military budget by A LOT, and tax the rich more. Then we can see where we stand and adjust from there.

If these are hard problems that require careful unwinding and will cost more than they save, then they are not "the obvious changes".

The fact that the wealth inequality in America has been growing, and the ever growing amount of money being spent on politicians, demonstrates that there are exploits that allow people to avoid their fair share of taxes, and instead just keep pooling assets under their ownership. These people aren't dumping money on politicians because of charity. They expect money back, and they have gotten it.

What actually is the "fair share of taxes" for any given person? Are you aware that, at the most recent federal statistics update, 98% of income taxes are paid by the top 50% of income earners (who make way more than I do), and almost 40% are paid by the top 1% - even though they get less than a quarter of the income? Almost a quarter of all income going to the top 1% is a lot, I certainly acknowledge that, but they pay significantly more as a proportion in taxes than everyone else. If they aren't paying their fair share, what is their fair share?

And since there are ways to avoid taxes for the super rich(here is a cool pamphlet listing some of the ways),

Have you sourced any of the information in this infographic from reddit?

Well if you just assume the worse then of course things will go poorly. Of course congress should make a plan and not just rip healthcare insurance out of the economy. Many if not all of the jobs you listed exist for the sake of any business, not just insurance, and any slack cut off of insurance companies can be filled by other businesses (which should probably be subsidized as part of the plan).

You called it the obvious changes to start with. If you meant "the obvious changes we should make only after extensive deliberation, confirmation that they will actually work, and a well-thought-out plan to cover the consequences, which by the way nobody has or even knows how to begin", you should have said so.
And the truth is, there is no such plan. We already know subsidizing businesses — paying people to do less — doesn't work. The slack cut off of insurance companies will not be filled by other businesses because those businesses are already filling those needs, and there is a limit to how much anyone needs. You can't actually just pack more dollars or people into the economy and expect it to work out; if you want to improve standards of living, which are the reason people get jobs in the first place, somewhere along the line you have to figure out how to produce more real value.

And finally, the job market is not stagnant. Unemployment is at it's lowest in decades as is the unemployed people per vacancies.

... please. If you aren't familiar with the extensive documentation of the more or less intentional, designed-in flaws in the BLS' unemployment statistics, at least try asking some people who are actually looking for jobs anywhere in the country.

[Micro102]

Maximum Spin, all you have done is assert that no one knows what to do and that nothing will work. I'm not taking that seriously. You just claimed multiple things with no sources, and then complained about sources in a pamphlet who's sources you missed at the bottom.

Here is a bill proposed by Sanders. Of course there have been plans. The problem isn't the planning, we have plenty of other countries to base our models off of. The problem is that a lot of our politicians are bribed to hell and back. The majority of America wants at the very least a government option. O look, a step in the right direction that will improve things and that can be part of the plan that other countries have also done.

I also find it VERY bizarre that you are somehow asserting that current businesses have already met all the demands in society. Of course there will be growth to fill a gap. There always has been despite our ever increasing productivity due to technology. And there especially will be when people have more spendable income.

[Maximum Spin]

You just claimed multiple things with no sources, and then complained about sources in a pamphlet who's sources you missed at the bottom.

I didn't miss the sources, I'm asking you if you checked to see if they say what you've been told they say. You should absolutely check whether the federal tax statistics I've cited say what I say they say, too. That should be a basic requirement for talking about anything.

I also find it VERY bizarre that you are somehow asserting that current businesses have already met all the demands in society.

For Christ's sake, I didn't say that. I said that current businesses already get by with the number of janitors (etc.) they currently employ, so they will not absorb the excess if you render a bunch of janitors (etc.) unemployed, which you said they would; at least not without causing depression of wages and thus living conditions, not just in those specific sectors but (due to a sort of inverse Baumol effect) everywhere. You understand supply and demand, right? You are at least aware of the concept?

Anyway, you can have all the pure religious faith that there must be a solution that you want (there doesn't have to be!), but I have yet to see an actual thorough, well-worked plan founded in realistic economics and not Keynesianism that got debunked by reality in the '70s. I'm not asserting that nothing will work, but I'm sure as hell asserting that nobody currently has a plan that will work, because nobody does.

[Micro102]

Does this sound like asking if I checked the sources?

Have you sourced any of the information in this infographic from reddit?

Doesn't to me. Sounds like you asked if I sourced it. And even if I grant that you did mean that, that just means you might as well have said "are you suuuure?" and just can't express what you want to say properly, which would actually explain a lot. And it's not an argument. If you want to call all of that a lie, then lets see you put some effort beyond pure denial and asserting no one else knows about the economy.

As for the "other businesses", I was talking about new businesses that would appear after the offices these janitors and repairmen were taking care of shut down. New businesses should be subsidized to open as we ween off health insurance companies. I did not think that other businesses were going to hire extra janitors and repairmen just for the hell of it ...unless...searches Google... Yep, there is a custodial shortage. O look at that they might just hire some of them after all.

Also I gave you a bill by Sanders but of course you didn't even acknowledge it. Or you did in a roundabout dismissive way that anyone can do about anything and thus has no value as an argument. Are you really just going to stick with "I am right about everything by default" the entire time? I'm giving you tons of sources and all you do is go "Nah, that was debunked already". Creationists also do that about evolution. It's not appealing.

[Maximum Spin]

Have you sourced any of the information in this infographic from reddit?

Doesn't to me. Sounds like you asked if I sourced it.

... what do you think "to source something" means? It means to check the cited source for a claim. This is an incredibly common usage. Maybe it's more academic than I think it is?

As for the "other businesses", I was talking about new businesses that would appear after the offices these janitors and repairmen were taking care of shut down. New businesses should be subsidized to open as we ween off health insurance companies. I did not think that other businesses were going to hire extra janitors and repairmen just for the hell of it ...unless...searches Google... Yep, there is a custodial shortage. O look at that they might just hire some of them after all.

When you unemploy more people who are now looking for jobs, wages go down because the supply of labor has increased. So wages will go down in the janitors and repairmen sectors, as well as across the entire economy, to absorb those extra people. This is basic supply and demand. It's also why all those articles claiming shortages in various industries, which are usually dubious at best, get written: To try to tempt more people to enter those industries in order to depress wages.
If you want to subsidize new businesses to soak up the extra people, then you're just moving the cost back to the government again, and in a way that has literally never worked any other time it has been tried in history. Subsidizing the opening of new businesses gets you businesses that can't function in the long term without subsidy, because if they could, they wouldn't need to be subsidized to be opened. Credit has been easy to come by for decades, and if the venture capital industry can tell us anything, it's that startup capital is not the problem.

[Micro102]

... what do you think "to source something" means? It means to check the cited source for a claim. This is an incredibly common usage. Maybe it's more academic than I think it is?

It's not. But hey, find a source for that and prove me wrong. If you google how to source something, it explains the details needed to identify where the source of the information is. To read a source, is called "reading".... Yes I'm being petty but you really shouldn't dig holes like this. It's ok to miss dark colored sources below a bright pamphlet. It just looks like a poorly cropped image.

When you unemploy more people who are now looking for jobs, wages go down because the supply of labor has increased. So wages will go down in the janitors and repairmen sectors, as well as across the entire economy, to absorb those extra people. This is basic supply and demand. It's also why all those articles claiming shortages in various industries, which are usually dubious at best, get written: To try to tempt more people to enter those industries in order to depress wages.
If you want to subsidize new businesses to soak up the extra people, then you're just moving the cost back to the government again, and in a way that has literally never worked any other time it has been tried in history. Subsidizing the opening of new businesses gets you businesses that can't function in the long term without subsidy, because if they could, they wouldn't need to be subsidized to be opened. Credit has been easy to come by for decades, and if the venture capital industry can tell us anything, it's that startup capital is not the problem.

Starting a business costs a lot of initial investment, and a lot of people can't even take a loan out for that much money, let alone afford risking taking on that debt. Of course startup capital is a problem. And a quick google search tells me that sometimes the requirements requires you to have already been in business for years. And we already have subsidies for different types of businesses right now.

[Maximum Spin]

It's not. But hey, find a source for that and prove me wrong.

Okay. Collins English Dictionary:
"vb
8. (Journalism & Publishing) to determine the source of a news report or story
9. (foll by: from) to originate from
10. (tr) to establish an originator or source of (a product, piece of information, etc)"

To determine or establish a source necessarily means confirming it actually says what is claimed, not just knowing that an ostensible source has been listed somewhere.

Starting a business costs a lot of initial investment, and a lot of people can't even take a loan out for that much money, let alone afford risking taking on that debt.

So giving free money to people with bad credit (and to be clear, your credit has to be unimaginably bad not to be able to get a loan) who will almost certainly fail - because almost all new businesses fail - is your solution to this?

And we already have subsidies for different types of businesses right now.

Right, like I said, it's been tried an awful lot, and it's not working now, and it's never worked. So double down?

[scriver]

Spin, government funded health care and health insurance employs people too.

[Maximum Spin]

Spin, government funded health care and health insurance employs people too.

I covered that thoroughly. There are two possibilities — either you employ the same number of people at the same costs, in which case you can't expect any cost savings or efficiency gains, or you don't, in which case you have depressed wages, job searching, and people complaining about the government taking away their livelihoods. I clearly covered both options here:

Yes, the insurance industry is a nightmarish bureaucratic quagmire that absorbs labor for the generation of paperwork, but do you understand the economic ramifications of unleashing all these people on a stagnant job market with no plan, with the Fed promising rate increases and a recession looming? Or do you expect to pay them all the same amount, or more, for the same (widely acknowledged to be largely unnecessary) work or none, in which case not only haven't you saved any money, you've grafted the entire insurance industry into a new line item in the Congressional budget to expand at will?

The point is that both options involve tradeoffs, like everything.

The overwhelming likelihood, of course, is that single-payer government funded health care would employ vastly fewer people, all at the cheapest wages possible (much like the DMV), which is the point; the whole reason it's being described as a cost-saving measure.

[Micro102]

It's not. But hey, find a source for that and prove me wrong.

Okay. Collins English Dictionary:
"vb
8. (Journalism & Publishing) to determine the source of a news report or story
9. (foll by: from) to originate from
10. (tr) to establish an originator or source of (a product, piece of information, etc)"

To determine or establish a source necessarily means confirming it actually says what is claimed, not just knowing that an ostensible source has been listed somewhere.

1) It's funny you had to resort to the British version of a definition from a dictionary a bit down the google search page to find a sentence manipulatable enough to make your point.

2) No one uses the word like this. You clearly chose the definition referring to what the author is suppose to do. And everyone knows this.

So giving free money to people with bad credit (and to be clear, your credit has to be unimaginably bad not to be able to get a loan) who will almost certainly fail - because almost all new businesses fail - is your solution to this?

Exactly what are you imagining when I say someone starts a small business? How big do you think a loan would need to be to buy a physical location (because that is what janitors and repairmen would be needed for)? How much is "unimaginably bad" and "certainly fail"? because these are very vague claims that feel purposefully vague so you can shift your argument around as needed.

Right, like I said, it's been tried an awful lot, and it's not working now, and it's never worked. So double down?

And yet the US GDP is constantly rising. All our politicians keep doing this thing that apparently you, the ultimate source of economic information, says doesn't work. Curious.

[Frumple]

you employ the same number of people at the same costs, in which case you can't expect any cost savings or efficiency gains

This is entirely untrue, though. Employing the same number of people at the same wages, but under a single (or even divvied up on a state level, for that matter, it'd still be a massive improvement over the current state of things), relatively unified administration is pretty much guaranteed to cause massive cost savings and efficiency gains, just by dint of simplifying the paperwork process and ejecting bad actors (i.e. the vast majority of the health insurance industry) that are actively attempting to make the process more time consuming and expensive in ways far above and beyond just the wages and livelihoods of the employees involved.

The US health industry is pissing away gigantic amounts of money, time, and effort dealing with the sheer number of disparate processes our mess of a private industry inflicts on healthcare administration in an attempt to deny coverage and maximize profits. You can throw a rock at discussions among healthcare workers that actually have to deal with that shit and hit someone complaining about it, and for damn good reason.

Employing the exact same amount of people at the exact same wage would still see massive fiscal improvements, because having those under a much smaller amount of employers would enable the folks involved to cut out a genuinely tremendous amount of bullshit currently sucking all sorts of life out of the healthcare industry.