Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ok, so since minimum wage took off instead of wtf I was talking about:

My team makes $10/hr working from home, which is good money for an entry level job, even more so for one you don't have to get out of bed for.

Most of my employees are either students who take night classes, or have spouses with better income. In both cases, they don't NEED health benefits since they already have coverage(I think 1 of my team isn't insured, not 100% on it thought). What they DO need are more hours, and more money. But I can't give it to them(as much as I would) because the risk of them needing company coverage is too high an increase in their cost(25-33%).

So now in 2014, those same people who don't want/need coverage from my company get their hours reduced because the limit is dropping rather significantly, meaning they each have less money, and I'll have to hire someone to make up the hours, which in turn makes my job busier since it's another person to manage and train.

Even if you make $24/hr, there should be some manner of opting out of benefits and being able to work full time with the understanding that benefits cannot/will not be offered for the position at any point.

There will never be a time when my team gets health coverage from the company, simple as that, the cost is too high. They can get more hours though, and now those hours are being dictated by the government.

My company is not very big(about 75 people), we don't get any massive savings on our health coverage premiums.

It's a POS bill unfortunately. It's also what the American people voted for. I feel a bit bad for saying this, but I voted against it, and I can't be affected by it, so I say let America feel it's tender mercies for a little while. Feel the consequences of buying into the BS that they took hook line and sinker.

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Plus many skilled Union Jobs would be more expensive... as much of their hourly rates are contractually tied to what the state's minimum wage.

So, raising the minimum wage isn't the simple answer.

No. Raising the minimum wage is both the easiest and best answer to one specific problem in the US - the issue of the working poor.

Most UNION collective bargained agreement stipulates that if the state/federal minimum wage rises, then the Union rates rises as well. That's why you see UNION involvement whenever this get kicked around.

It doesn't answer anything to do with Obamacare (I don't really know why it was raised at all to be honest).

Someone brought up minimum wage in this tread... *shrug*

 Frazzled wrote:

This is not true with the people with the higher incomes. They tend to save their money and not spend it. This hurts the economy as the money doesn't circulate and then stagnates.

Saving bad. Spending good. I bet you voted for Obama didn't you, or can you vote yet?

Needing to resort to a personal attack shows your argument's lack of merit, but as far as macro economics is concerned, saving too much IS bad.

No way is the CEO of the company doing more than 25 times the worth of work as the burger-flipper, and should be compensated appropriately (this includes benefits, stock options, bonuses, etc).

25? This isn't Japan. Think 800x.

Japan or the US doesn't matter. Nothing the executives do make them deserving of such a disproportionate compensation as compared to the workers, and that right there is what is killing the economy.

 Alfndrate wrote:
But raising minimum wage only helps if the cost of good stays the same, if those costs go up in relation to minimum wage (or minimum wage rises to meet those costs) then we're not really getting anywhere are we?

But goods don't raise in price equal to the increase in minimum wage. As I already said, that would only be the case if the only cost to every good was wages, and every single person in the economy was on the minimum wage.

To repost the maths explaining this;

"You have some portion of the population on minimum wage, let's say 5%. You increase the minimum wage by some amount, let's say 12.5%, from $8 to $9. And let's say 60% of the cost of production is in wages. And for simplicity's sake we'll assume the whole of the cost increase is passed on to consumers.

This means that minimum wage increase will lead to an increase in the price of goods by 0.375% (12.5% * 60% * 5%).

For the 5% of people who are on the minimum wage, they have a pay increase of 12.5%, which is slightly offset by a rise in costs of 0.375%, for an overall increase in living standards of 12.08%.

For the 95% earning over the minimum wage, they see a rise in the cost of goods of 3.75%."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
The minimum wage is not actually very good, guys. From one liberal to another, please stop talking about it like it's super positive.

You're wrong. The pure economic benefits of the minimum wage are immense, even before you worry about all that social fairness stuff.

Simply put, with a decent minimum wage you make a significent dent in to the problems of the poverty trap. When a person earns $3 or $4 an hour, then just to make ends meet he has to work a second job. Any hope of spending time away from work studying massively drops away. And all that work is just to keep a roof over your head, any hope of saving to get a little money behind you. The effect on social mobility is massive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Most UNION collective bargained agreement stipulates that if the state/federal minimum wage rises, then the Union rates rises as well. That's why you see UNION involvement whenever this get kicked around.

Yeah, I know, but ultimately that's an argument against unions, not an argument to keep making life really hard for people who are actually on the minimum wage.

Someone brought up minimum wage in this tread... *shrug*

Yeah, I know. I saw it happen, didn't really follow the logic of how it related to Obamacare so I didn't say anything. And then when I got suckered in to debating minimum wage, I thought I'd just mention it in passing. I wasn't personally questioning you on the issue or anything like that, sorry I didn't make that clear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skyth wrote:
Needing to resort to a personal attack shows your argument's lack of merit, but as far as macro economics is concerned, saving too much IS bad.

Sort of, but not really. Saving is bad in certain, specific, acute situations. ie Saving right now is bad now, because of the GFC you have a situation where too many people are saving too much, and even at interest rates near zero people aren't saving enough.

In general though, savings are good because they provide the funds for investment. Rather than being a dollar not spent, it is instead a dollar left at the bank, which is then loaned to an investor, who spends it on capital, which not only has the same immediate stimulus as consumer spending, it has the added advantage of increasing economic capacity long term.

Japan or the US doesn't matter. Nothing the executives do make them deserving of such a disproportionate compensation as compared to the workers, and that right there is what is killing the economy.

I agree that the rates of pay at the top are too high. But it isn't killing the economy, that's just a political argument of convenience with really no economic numbers behind it to substantiate it.

 sebster wrote:

But goods don't raise in price equal to the increase in minimum wage. As I already said, that would only be the case if the only cost to every good was wages, and every single person in the economy was on the minimum wage.

To repost the maths explaining this;

"You have some portion of the population on minimum wage, let's say 5%. You increase the minimum wage by some amount, let's say 12.5%, from $8 to $9. And let's say 60% of the cost of production is in wages. And for simplicity's sake we'll assume the whole of the cost increase is passed on to consumers.

This means that minimum wage increase will lead to an increase in the price of goods by 0.375% (12.5% * 60% * 5%).

For the 5% of people who are on the minimum wage, they have a pay increase of 12.5%, which is slightly offset by a rise in costs of 0.375%, for an overall increase in living standards of 12.08%.

For the 95% earning over the minimum wage, they see a rise in the cost of goods of 3.75%."

But wouldn't real-world prices sidestep that, and increase to optimum price, i.e. what the market will bear?

 djones520 wrote:
It's a POS bill unfortunately. It's also what the American people voted for. I feel a bit bad for saying this, but I voted against it, and I can't be affected by it, so I say let America feel it's tender mercies for a little while. Feel the consequences of buying into the BS that they took hook line and sinker.

so far the results have been devastating, the cost of health care has dropped for the first time in 40 years

 Grundz wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
It's a POS bill unfortunately. It's also what the American people voted for. I feel a bit bad for saying this, but I voted against it, and I can't be affected by it, so I say let America feel it's tender mercies for a little while. Feel the consequences of buying into the BS that they took hook line and sinker.

so far the results have been devastating, the cost of health care has dropped for the first time in 40 years

No they haven't. Their rate of growth has slown, but they are still climbing. 6.3% this year, expected to be between 6.5 and 7.5% next year if we're lucky and some of the harsher forecasts of Obamacare aren't the truth. There are predictions out there that we'll see a 37% rise in price in 2017.

 djones520 wrote:

 Grundz wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
It's a POS bill unfortunately. It's also what the American people voted for. I feel a bit bad for saying this, but I voted against it, and I can't be affected by it, so I say let America feel it's tender mercies for a little while. Feel the consequences of buying into the BS that they took hook line and sinker.

so far the results have been devastating, the cost of health care has dropped for the first time in 40 years

No they haven't. Their rate of growth has slown, but they are still climbing. 6.3% this year, expected to be between 6.5 and 7.5% next year if we're lucky and some of the harsher forecasts of Obamacare aren't the truth.

cost, not rate of growth, thanks

 Grundz wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
It's a POS bill unfortunately. It's also what the American people voted for. I feel a bit bad for saying this, but I voted against it, and I can't be affected by it, so I say let America feel it's tender mercies for a little while. Feel the consequences of buying into the BS that they took hook line and sinker.

so far the results have been devastating, the cost of health care has dropped for the first time in 40 years

You must be living on a different planet then the rest of the United States.

 Grundz wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Grundz wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
It's a POS bill unfortunately. It's also what the American people voted for. I feel a bit bad for saying this, but I voted against it, and I can't be affected by it, so I say let America feel it's tender mercies for a little while. Feel the consequences of buying into the BS that they took hook line and sinker.

so far the results have been devastating, the cost of health care has dropped for the first time in 40 years

No they haven't. Their rate of growth has slown, but they are still climbing. 6.3% this year, expected to be between 6.5 and 7.5% next year if we're lucky and some of the harsher forecasts of Obamacare aren't the truth.

cost, not rate of growth, thanks

Are you dense? Costs have risen by that amount. They raise every year. The amount that they raise by has slown, but the COSTS KEEP RAISING.

 djones520 wrote:

 Grundz wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Grundz wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
It's a POS bill unfortunately. It's also what the American people voted for. I feel a bit bad for saying this, but I voted against it, and I can't be affected by it, so I say let America feel it's tender mercies for a little while. Feel the consequences of buying into the BS that they took hook line and sinker.

so far the results have been devastating, the cost of health care has dropped for the first time in 40 years

No they haven't. Their rate of growth has slown, but they are still climbing. 6.3% this year, expected to be between 6.5 and 7.5% next year if we're lucky and some of the harsher forecasts of Obamacare aren't the truth.

cost, not rate of growth, thanks

Are you dense? Costs have risen by that amount. They raise every year. The amount that they raise by has slown, but the COSTS KEEP RAISING.

No they haven't

 Grundz wrote:
No they haven't

I would like to see a source, because my medical insurance went up in the past several months...

Yes they have.

http://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/benefits/articles/pages/health-premiums-2013.aspx

2012 had the lowest RATE INCREASES for the last 6 years. 2013 is projected to be higher. 2014 higher then that.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Grundz wrote:
No they haven't

I would like to see a source, because my medical insurance went up in the past several months...

Indeed.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Grundz wrote:
No they haven't

I would like to see a source, because my medical insurance went up in the past several months...

Mine too...

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Grundz wrote:
No they haven't

I would like to see a source, because my medical insurance went up in the past several months...

Thats your insurance raising prices in anticipation for, I dont know, the sun rising? do they need a real reason? I said healthcare cost, which does directly effect insurance prices, but isn't the only factor.

"Hey is it cold outside?"
"ITS HUMID!"
"... thats sort of related to what I was saying...."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
also DJ, that report is 8 months old

I can't speak on rates increasing as I had state benefits until this year.

I do know that $760/month out of pocket is a ton of money for a family of 4 with an income of only $60k/yr and the rent that I have.

Hell my rent eats up 50% of my take home income alone because of the area I live in.

As it stands, I don't make enough money to provide healthcare for my whole family and not starve. I can afford it for the kids, but the extra $400 is our grocery money, so the wife is SOL if she loses her job.

 Grundz wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Grundz wrote:
No they haven't

I would like to see a source, because my medical insurance went up in the past several months...

Thats your insurance raising prices in anticipation for, I dont know, the sun rising? do they need a real reason? I said healthcare cost, which does directly effect insurance prices, but isn't the only factor.

"Hey is it cold outside?"
"ITS HUMID!"
"... thats sort of related to what I was saying...."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
also DJ, that report is 8 months old

I noticed you didn't actually respond with the requested data support. I'm sensing full of it, you are.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Grundz wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Grundz wrote:
No they haven't

I would like to see a source, because my medical insurance went up in the past several months...

Thats your insurance raising prices in anticipation for, I dont know, the sun rising? do they need a real reason? I said healthcare cost, which does directly effect insurance prices, but isn't the only factor.

"Hey is it cold outside?"
"ITS HUMID!"
"... thats sort of related to what I was saying...."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
also DJ, that report is 8 months old

I noticed you didn't actually respond with the requested data support. I'm sensing full of it, you are.

sure, let me google for, I dont know, ten seconds?
http://www.politicususa.com/2013/06/19/bfd-healthcare-costs-fell-time-40-years.html
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/06/18/medical-costs-register-first-decline-since-1970s/

Don't you guys own cars? what something costs, and what you will pay for them are /very/ different things

I work for a company that distributes drugs, our profit margins are what you may consider madness, and it all comes out of your insurance money (well, most of it) and there are various controls in place to keep drug prices from dropping that everyone in the industry does.

Here's something from 2 days ago.

SLOWER GROWING HEALTH CARE COSTS.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/18/are-slower-growing-health-care-costs-temporary-or-permanent/

Right in the title. Note that word, growing? It means the opposite of lowering, shrinking, getting smaller, etc...

From your quoted WSJ report (note the key word "increased")

Compared with a year earlier, the medical prices index increased 2.2%. That’s higher than the overall 1.4% gain in consumer prices but still the slowest annual expansion since the 1970s.

The Labor Department’s index only intends to measure consumers’ out-of-pocket costs, but as a huge buyer of medical care the government can influence prices more broadly.

 djones520 wrote:
Here's something from 2 days ago.

SLOWER GROWING HEALTH CARE COSTS.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/18/are-slower-growing-health-care-costs-temporary-or-permanent/

Right in the title. Note that word, growing? It means the opposite of lowering, shrinking, getting smaller, etc...

right from your article "Is the historically slow growth in health spending in recent years"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spending?s=t

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cost?s=t&ld=1136

Strangely it still says "growth" ...

 Grundz wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Here's something from 2 days ago.

SLOWER GROWING HEALTH CARE COSTS.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/18/are-slower-growing-health-care-costs-temporary-or-permanent/

Right in the title. Note that word, growing? It means the opposite of lowering, shrinking, getting smaller, etc...

right from your article "Is the historically slow growth in health spending in recent years"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spending?s=t

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cost?s=t&ld=1136

Grundz... the reality was that the ACA act (Affordable Care Act) was sold to the public that it'll drive down healthcare cost. It's not driving down anything....

That's the issue.

Had they NOT done that... that is, had they just said "hey, you'll be getting these Extra amenities/protection" instead of say "it'll definately make healthcare more affordable, I don't think we'd be having anywhere near the acrimonious debates of the ACA act.

 whembly wrote:

Grundz... the reality was that the ACA act (Affordable Care Act) was sold to the public that it'll drive down healthcare cost. It's not driving down anything....
That's the issue.
Had they NOT done that... that is, had they just said "hey, you'll be getting these Extra amenities/protection" instead of say "it'll definately make healthcare more affordable, I don't think we'd be having anywhere near the acrimonious debates of the ACA act.

As it still hasn't been implemented yet, it still hasn't been proven to not do xyz.
It'll turn into the same thing as wealth inequality honestly, ACA sets up its own insurance program which is at a level that the market can support, ideally private insurance can provide better/cheaper service, or they can just not do that and keep all the money for themselves using the uncertainty ACA has presented as an excuse to jack up rates (which is what they've done). Lets put it this way, insurance companies all raise their rates because of market uncertainty (they say) this in turn makes ACA look bad, which also serves as helping destroy ACA that will damage them in the long run, its a win/win

The healthcare industry has pretty much the ideal situation right now, they have a product you absolutely cannot live without, and can charge anything they want for it, and they will get their money for it anyway through insurance (generally) Imagine if you will being a distributor, and relying not on volume, but on a 300+% markup, before it gets to the store to sell it, and you have my business, we even pay next day shipping on every box that goes out the door, for free, because our margins are so silly that fedex/ups next day service is a pittance.

So what you are saying is that drug companies should have a far shorter lifespan on drug patents, so that generics come out faster and cheaper, therefore insurance rates will drop?

AFAIK hospitals use mostly generic meds for everyday cases already. So the real issue would be prescriptions at home. I know Prozac in it's heyday was something like $90 per pill, and have seen Percocet and other's go for near that until insurance kicks in.

I know that Lexapro was $200/month not long ago.

So if Obamacare really wanted to lower insurance rates, which you are asserting are based off drug prices, then the ACA should have put caps in place on those prices, or severely reduced the length of patent protection for them.

Then you push down the incentive for R&D on new drugs.

The problem is that (and please someone correct me if I'm wrong) drug companies are able to extend the patent on a product if they can find some new medical benefit to the product correct? I think this has happened with cialis and a few other drugs like it.

 Alfndrate wrote:
The problem is that (and please someone correct me if I'm wrong) drug companies are able to extend the patent on a product if they can find some new medical benefit to the product correct? I think this has happened with cialis and a few other drugs like it.

No, the current patent during for pharmaceuticals are okay (I believe it's 7 years). The PROBLEM is that many companies would try to reformulate existing patents with other components that are clinically insignificant. See here...

What's driving up costs is more than just drugs... it's things like:
-FDA constantly changing the rules
-Government intervention
-For-profit insurance markets
-Tort laws
-Medial Malpractice markets
-Low unemployments
-and on, and on...

EDIT:
The bill is just a gak sandwich... there's all kinds of silly, stupid gak they incorporated in these types of "comprehensive" massive bills. I'm mean, look at the current shenanigans with the proposed immigration reform... Amendment Would Give Amnesty/Legal Status to Any Would-Be Immigrant Displaced by 'Climate Change'. It's things like these that these congress-critters think we're idiots.