Politics

[RDU Irish]

I began this discussion about part-time vs. full-time with the recommendation of taking businesses off the hook on healthcare and advocating for a single-payer system because in my view that would allow businesses to invest the money they use to pay that benefit to employees into hiring more. .

This is a valid point. The cause of hiring is a reduced cost of hiring. Temporarily you may see a decrease of hiring due to companies reverting from part time back to full time employment since full time is marginally more attractive. You are essentially reducing the minimum wage in this scenario.

 

[ab2cmiller]

I began this discussion about part-time vs. full-time with the recommendation of taking businesses off the hook on healthcare and advocating for a single-payer system because in my view that would allow businesses to invest the money they use to pay that benefit to employees into hiring more. Where does that leave us? With a fully insured population ready to fill all of the jobs that would be created (according to right wing theory). Of course, that is not a palletable solution to the right. Why? You got me. I'm sure they would argue that it would represent a "tax increase" that would slow economic growth, but pure common sense would seem to refute that logic. Most unemployed folks, it seems to me, would rather pay a little more in taxes for the ability to work and pay any taxes at all. It seems to me that if "job creators" are going to create jobs if we ease their burden, removing the responsibility for their employee healthcare costs would do just that. I'm certain that you find this to be a childish generalization (you are the expert, being a child yourself) but I'd like to hear your unnecissarily rude comment anyway.

In a single payer system who are you suggesting is "picking up the tab" for the insurance? Will companies be taxed? Will individuals be taxed? or Will it just be added to the debt?

If the companies will be taxed, you might still see a small increase in hiring since the hiring of an additional employee won't directly increase their costs. However, they would still have to pay the "tax man" and would probably limit their hiring to pay the increase in taxes.

The only way you would get a significant amount of hiring is if the bulk of the bill is passed on to individuals or added to the federal debt which would "free up" additional resources for hiring. Neither one of those options is very attractive. Yes the unemployed would maybe think it's better then not having a job, but a significant percentage of employed individuals would see their health insurance costs explode.

If you don't pass it on to companies or individuals, that only leaves adding it to the national debt. I can't imagine anyone thinking that this is a real option.

 

[Downinthebend]

I'm 200. Vote for me.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

I'm 200. Vote for me.

Noah was the greatest economist of all time! What with the ark and all the animals, two by two...genius!

 

[GoIrish41]

In a single payer system who are you suggesting is "picking up the tab" for the insurance? Will companies be taxed? Will individuals be taxed? or Will it just be added to the debt?

If the companies will be taxed, you might still see a small increase in hiring since the hiring of an additional employee won't directly increase their costs. However, they would still have to pay the "tax man" and would probably limit their hiring to pay the increase in taxes.

The only way you would get a significant amount of hiring is if the bulk of the bill is passed on to individuals or added to the federal debt which would "free up" additional resources for hiring. Neither one of those options is very attractive. Yes the unemployed would maybe think it's better then not having a job, but a significant percentage of employed individuals would see their health insurance costs explode.

If you don't pass it on to companies or individuals, that only leaves adding it to the national debt. I can't imagine anyone thinking that this is a real option.

When Romney says he is going to pay for his massive tax cuts, he claims he will do so by closing loopholes. When those numbers don't add up, he says we've forgot to consider the massive spike in employment that would occur when his policiies take effect. This is exactly the same concept I'm proposing above. Why is that OK for the right and not the left to use projected job growth (that in this case it is hard to argue would occur) to generate additional revenue to pay for the single-payer option?

 

[GoIrish41]

You still have a lot to learn and you're still full of $hit. If you were as old and wise as you claim to be, you wouldn't sound like a 6 year old who wasn't invited to the birthday party. Every time someone tears apart your lackluster argument or proves you wrong, you dismiss them because they're younger than you.

Everyone has the right to their opinions, and I opine that you bring down the level of intellect in this entire thread not only in content but delivery.

I'm Polish Leppy and I approve this message.

I respect your right to have an opinion even if I do not respect your opinion. And, as stated before, I'm not dismissing them because they are young, I'm dismissing them because they are insulting and rude (much like you are) in attacking other posters who they disagree with. You, I believe, have a few years on these guys and should absolutly know better. I think you should read back your last 6 or 7 posts and re-assess who sounds like a 6-year-old.

 

[connor_in]

Nice Buster. What you are missing is perspective, and discipline. When you can't win an argument, you resort to name calling and rude statements. "You are too young" is not the only response I have made on here. I have clearly articulated what I believe throughout this thread. You don't have to agree with me. We obviously have a different world view. But it is simply not civil to lash out at people the way you do -- especially people who are more educated, more experienced, and more open minded than you.

If you were my age and spoke to people like that, I'd just dismiss you as a jacka**. But, in your case, I won't do that because you are just a stupid teenager who doesn't know sh*t that he didn't read in a book or learn from watching some professor speak about his thesis on economics.

I began this discussion about part-time vs. full-time with the recommendation of taking businesses off the hook on healthcare and advocating for a single-payer system because in my view that would allow businesses to invest the money they use to pay that benefit to employees into hiring more. Where does that leave us? With a fully insured population ready to fill all of the jobs that would be created (according to right wing theory). Of course, that is not a palletable solution to the right. Why? You got me. I'm sure they would argue that it would represent a "tax increase" that would slow economic growth, but pure common sense would seem to refute that logic. Most unemployed folks, it seems to me, would rather pay a little more in taxes for the ability to work and pay any taxes at all. It seems to me that if "job creators" are going to create jobs if we ease their burden, removing the responsibility for their employee healthcare costs would do just that. I'm certain that you find this to be a childish generalization (you are the expert, being a child yourself) but I'd like to hear your unnecissarily rude comment anyway.

Um dude...have you read some of your own posts back along this thread? You too have "been insulting and aggressive" in your own responses. Those traits are not exclusive to the young.

 

[Downinthebend]

Y'all both too old for politics.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

I used to volunteer at a nursing home, and believe me, I would never, ever, ever, consult any of them regarding any important decision. Ever. Including politics. And most of them were in their 90's.

 

[GoIrish41]

Um dude...have you read some of your own posts back along this thread? You too have "been insulting and aggressive" in your own responses. Those traits are not exclusive to the young.

I'd say for the most part, I have been fairly level-headed and non-aggressive. I actually looked back through my posts and think that when attacked, I argued back (sometimes more aggressively that I should have perhaps), but I have not resorted to name-calling or insults. You can tell me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.

That said, I take your point and will try to make sure I don't type something that may offend. That is actually the last thing I wish to do. Thanks.

 

[GoIrish41]

This is a valid point. The cause of hiring is a reduced cost of hiring. Temporarily you may see a decrease of hiring due to companies reverting from part time back to full time employment since full time is marginally more attractive. You are essentially reducing the minimum wage in this scenario.

How do you figure? I'm certainly not advocating the reduction of the minimum wage.

 

[Rizzophil]

So now the State Dept has acknowledged that the Libya attack wasn't due to a movie. Nor was it a copy cat attack. It was a terrorist attack on a US citizen/ambassador. The State Dept hasn't stated why they detained the movie maker at this point.

Now the mainstream media is left trying to cover their tale since they promoted the government lie.

This is bigger than Watergate and yet no one is talking about it.

Between the green energy companies and their DNC bundles, Fast and Furious, and the Libya coverup, how can any American say that our President is truth telling and transparent?

 

[pkt77242]

So now the State Dept has acknowledged that the Libya attack wasn't due to a movie. Nor was it a copy cat attack. It was a terrorist attack on a US citizen/ambassador. The State Dept hasn't stated why they detained the movie maker at this point.

Now the mainstream media is left trying to cover their tale since they promoted the government lie.

This is bigger than Watergate and yet no one is talking about it.

Between the green energy companies and their DNC bundles, Fast and Furious, and the Libya coverup, how can any American say that our President is truth telling and transparent?

Really. Right there, you made sure that I could give a rat **** about your post.

 

[ab2cmiller]

When Romney says he is going to pay for his massive tax cuts, he claims he will do so by closing loopholes. When those numbers don't add up, he says we've forgot to consider the massive spike in employment that would occur when his policiies take effect. This is exactly the same concept I'm proposing above. Why is that OK for the right and not the left to use projected job growth (that in this case it is hard to argue would occur) to generate additional revenue to pay for the single-payer option?

Do you have any concept over the numbers that you are proposing???? To provide insurance for every person in the US without anyone paying for it and making it up by job growth???? It would probably be close to a trillion dollars. You are talking about doubling the current deficit which is already huge, and making it up by job growth. While your argument about Republicans using job growth to close some gaps might have an element of truth, you take things to absurd levels. Your arguments seem to becoming less and less rationale. You continue to belittle anyone that dares to cross you and yet you consider yourself level headed.

 

[GoIrish41]

Do you have any concept over the numbers that you are proposing???? To provide insurance for every person in the US without anyone paying for it and making it up by job growth???? It would probably be close to a trillion dollars. You are talking about doubling the current deficit which is already huge, and making it up by job growth. While your argument about Republicans using job growth to close some gaps might have an element of truth, you take things to absurd levels. Your arguments seem to becoming less and less rationale. You continue to belittle anyone that dares to cross you and yet you consider yourself level headed.

I'm not suggesting that nobody pay for it nor that employment growth would fully fund anything. But, you can go ahead and read my post that way if you wish (which is to say that I can understand why you concluded that is what I meant). Certainly there have to be taxes levied to pay for this, on individuals and businesses. Nothing is free and nobody is suggesting that it is. And listen buddy, 'm not trying to belittle anyone. i've been called every name in the book on this thread and continue to try to be civil. (Trust me you would know if I was trying to belittle someone). I just put an idea out there for people to discuss. But as with all discussions on this thread, it seems to degenerate into name calling. sigh

 

[autry_denson]

Really. Right there, you made sure that I could give a rat **** about your post.

Well put. Rizzophil either you forgot the italics, you're just saying strange and outlandish things in order to provoke, or you've got mental health issues.

 

[connor_in]

I'd say for the most part, I have been fairly level-headed and non-aggressive. I actually looked back through my posts and think that when attacked, I argued back (sometimes more aggressively that I should have perhaps), but I have not resorted to name-calling or insults. You can tell me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.

That said, I take your point and will try to make sure I don't type something that may offend. That is actually the last thing I wish to do. Thanks.

Dude...many people get excited discussing politics...that's why its not usually discussed in polite company along with religion

 

[GoIrish41]

Dude...many people get excited discussing politics...that's why its not usually discussed in polite company along with religion

This is a political thread on a discussion board. Don't want to rock the boat, but I thought that's what we were doing here. No need to fire insults when having a discussion. I think one thing is clear, this isn't entirely polite company. This reminds me of the old point/counter point skit on SNL.

 

[Quinntastic]

This is a political thread on a discussion board. Don't want to rock the boat, but I thought that's what we were doing here. No need to fire insults when having a discussion. I think one thing is clear, this isn't entirely polite company. This reminds me of the old point/counter point skit on SNL.

Jane, you ignorant slut.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

I love how I keep getting told on here how I don't know $hit because of my age. Then tonight I have dinner with 4 couples (just retirement age, all incredibly successful, family friends), talked about the economy, and the world, blah blah blah, and got told numerous times how bright I was, how level headed I was, how knowledgeable of economics I was, how successful they all believe I will be, and WHAT A FANTASTIC INSTITUTION I ATTEND.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I love how I keep getting told on here how I don't know $hit because of my age. Then tonight I have dinner with 4 couples (just retirement age, all incredibly successful, family friends), talked about the economy, and the world, blah blah blah, and got told numerous times how bright I was, how level headed I was, how knowledgeable of economics I was, how successful they all believe I will be, and WHAT A FANTASTIC INSTITUTION I ATTEND.

There are dumb older people and there are dumb younger people. I can say this, I was a totally different person when I graduated from college than I am now. Experience is very important.

I'm sure you're all of the things that your friends said. And you do attend a fine institution.

That said, living life does change one's perspective on things. At least it did in my case.

 

[Rhode Irish]

I love how I keep getting told on here how I don't know $hit because of my age. Then tonight I have dinner with 4 couples (just retirement age, all incredibly successful, family friends), talked about the economy, and the world, blah blah blah, and got told numerous times how bright I was, how level headed I was, how knowledgeable of economics I was, how successful they all believe I will be, and WHAT A FANTASTIC INSTITUTION I ATTEND.

This is the reason why it is pointless to argue in here, though. It seems like everyone here - as well educated and intellectually competent as we all may be - lives in their own echo chambers where all the smart people whose opinions we respect agree with us. We can't understand how people could possibly feel differently.

We're all told (or have been told) some variant of what you were told tonight at dinner. We have all developed our worldview based on all of the knowledge and wisdom we have accumulated over time. As I said before (and Buster mocked), we have all had brilliant professors and mentors and bosses who have crystallized the issues for us and provided insight and shaped our thinking.

Most of the people that have stayed with this thread are obviously pretty bright. But our politics are shaped by our underlying philosophies, and for whatever reason they seem to vary widely. And philosophies aren't right or wrong, and they can't be proven or disproven. You can take comfort in being padded on the back by people who agree with you, who probably come from a similar background as you, who may have even played a role in the formation of your worldview. I know the same could be said of me.

I'm just to the point of saying I agree to disagree on the headier issues. The best economists in the world disagree on this stuff. On social issues, I have very little respect for the other side. On serious thinking-people issues, I have my opinions and I believe I am right, but I can accept the fact that people have differing opinions.

 

[autry_denson]

I love how I keep getting told on here how I don't know $hit because of my age. Then tonight I have dinner with 4 couples (just retirement age, all incredibly successful, family friends), talked about the economy, and the world, blah blah blah, and got told numerous times how bright I was, how level headed I was, how knowledgeable of economics I was, how successful they all believe I will be, and WHAT A FANTASTIC INSTITUTION I ATTEND.

Two things that happen to many people over time (though not all) is that they develop some humility and self-awareness.

the further you get the more you realize how many people there are who did just as well or better in school, who were just as good or better at sports, etc. we all think we have important and brilliant insights when we're young, as we get older we realize that a lot of our thoughts are not all that brilliant and most of them have been stated many times before, and we start to chuckle at younger people who are shocked when people don't give enough attention to what they have to say.

When we're young we start to be critical of the received wisdom that we've been taught, when you get older you start to be critical of your own ideas once in a while. You get some new perspectives and you laugh at your own certainty on complex issues. Again, you develop some humility.

I'm in my 30s, I'm certain there are guys on here in their 50s or 60s who look at my posts and laugh as well. It's not a personal insult when some say that you don't get it, in part b/c you're young. It's that when we read posts that lack humility, that lack self-awareness, that express absolute certainty about a certain view and mock alternative ideas, that make their point by writing LOL five times in succession...we recognize a pattern of thought that is common among younger people.

(and by the way, it's not exclusive to the young as this thread makes clear.)

 

[BobD]

I love how I keep getting told on here how I don't know $hit because of my age. Then tonight I have dinner with 4 couples (just retirement age, all incredibly successful, family friends), talked about the economy, and the world, blah blah blah, and got told numerous times how bright I was, how level headed I was, how knowledgeable of economics I was, how successful they all believe I will be, and WHAT A FANTASTIC INSTITUTION I ATTEND.

Ask them: "If I don't know sh!t because of my age, whats your excuse?"

 

[RDU Irish]

How do you figure? I'm certainly not advocating the reduction of the minimum wage.

You are looking through the lense of a minimum WAGE, I am looking from the perspective of a minimum COST. Health care is a per person cost and part of the total compensation of an eligible employee. If you are in a minimum wage (or close) job, it is hard to justify the high marginal cost of health care for said employee.

Take full time two employees working 160 hours per month - one making $50/hour and the other $10/hour. Say health care costs the company $600/month. The hourly COST increases $3.75/hour for both if health care is provided. That is a 37.5% increase for the low wage employee and a 7.5% increase for the high wage employee.

Now why not make ALL employees part time? Well, you have to compete for higher skilled workers, there is a longer training period, etc. Low wage usually means low skill. You can train someone to bag groceries and work the cash register pretty quickly. Turnover is not crippling to food service, retail and hospitality like it would be for an accounting firm for example.

Summary - To reduce your benefits is the same as reducing your pay.

 

[RDU Irish]

Ask them: "If I don't know sh!t because of my age, whats your excuse?"

LOL - You just won the internet Bob!

SNL says there is a 50% chance Biden shows up greased up and shirtless.

 

[RDU Irish]

In a single payer system who are you suggesting is "picking up the tab" for the insurance? Will companies be taxed? Will individuals be taxed? or Will it just be added to the debt?

You are exactly right, someone has to pay for it. However, issolating the issue of low wage workers pushed into part time work with no benefits these taxes are based on wage level, not per capita fixed costs.

In the example previously stated, a 10% tax on wages for example (expanding FICA to cover yet another entitlement) would increase minimum COST 10%, but that is way more cost effective than a 37.5% increase illustrated above! It soaks the higher wage person at 10% instead of 7.5%, which would kill wage growth for a year or two if implemented over night.

You also provide less difference between part time and full time costs since ALL wages are taxed 10% the marginal cost of someone working 31 hours instead of 29 hours is not astronomical (note the 37.5% cost is over an entire 40 hours, the marginal cost of two hours more per week is $75/hour in this example - a 750% increase in marginal cost). Even spreading that cost over 10 hours is still a 150% increase in marginal cost of labor.

I think this is a horrible idea, I am just trying to illustrate the effects of a stance on employers. At the end of the day, a consumption tax to replace virtually all taxes (corporate, estate, income, FICA, etc) is optimal with a monthly pre-bate to all citizens, per capita. Tax consumption not production, it rewards savers and gives corporations a global competitive advantage. It also, in effect, lowers the minimum wage since companies no longer pay a 7.65% FICA tax.

 

[GoIrish41]

You are looking through the lense of a minimum WAGE, I am looking from the perspective of a minimum COST. Health care is a per person cost and part of the total compensation of an eligible employee. If you are in a minimum wage (or close) job, it is hard to justify the high marginal cost of health care for said employee.

Take full time two employees working 160 hours per month - one making $50/hour and the other $10/hour. Say health care costs the company $600/month. The hourly COST increases $3.75/hour for both if health care is provided. That is a 37.5% increase for the low wage employee and a 7.5% increase for the high wage employee.

Now why not make ALL employees part time? Well, you have to compete for higher skilled workers, there is a longer training period, etc. Low wage usually means low skill. You can train someone to bag groceries and work the cash register pretty quickly. Turnover is not crippling to food service, retail and hospitality like it would be for an accounting firm for example.

Summary - To reduce your benefits is the same as reducing your pay.

Not if you are not losing medical coverage. It's really just a matter of who is paying that bill (employer or government). Sure, lower income people are gaining something, but to be fair, those with insurance wouldn't really be losing anything. I do acknowledge that many wouldn't be happy about condensing the income gap in this way, but IMO it does not justify abandoning the minimum wage.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

In a single payer system who are you suggesting is "picking up the tab" for the insurance? Will companies be taxed? Will individuals be taxed? or Will it just be added to the debt?

You are exactly right, someone has to pay for it. However, issolating the issue of low wage workers pushed into part time work with no benefits these taxes are based on wage level, not per capita fixed costs.

In the example previously stated, a 10% tax on wages for example (expanding FICA to cover yet another entitlement) would increase minimum COST 10%, but that is way more cost effective than a 37.5% increase illustrated above! It soaks the higher wage person at 10% instead of 7.5%, which would kill wage growth for a year or two if implemented over night.

You also provide less difference between part time and full time costs since ALL wages are taxed 10% the marginal cost of someone working 31 hours instead of 29 hours is not astronomical (note the 37.5% cost is over an entire 40 hours, the marginal cost of two hours more per week is $75/hour in this example - a 750% increase in marginal cost). Even spreading that cost over 10 hours is still a 150% increase in marginal cost of labor.

I think this is a horrible idea, I am just trying to illustrate the effects of a stance on employers. At the end of the day, a consumption tax to replace virtually all taxes (corporate, estate, income, FICA, etc) is optimal with a monthly pre-bate to all citizens, per capita. Tax consumption not production, it rewards savers and gives corporations a global competitive advantage. It also, in effect, lowers the minimum wage since companies no longer pay a 7.65% FICA tax.

+1000. Plus it simplifies the Code.

On another note, nobody who has any experience with the Medicare bureaucracy could ever want a federal single-payer system. Underpayment is not the only reason many doctors and hospitals don't accept Medicare -- it is a nightmare maze of mercenary chart audits, conflicting rules, legislative uncertainty, monetary uncertainty, cut-backs, extentions, extentions of the cut-backs, fee caps, physician reviews, and changing reimbursement schedules, and all of which involve potential felonies if you're wrong, coded something wrong, or can't prove "medical necessity" 2 years after the fact.

And this is putting aside the fraud/abuse/waste inherent in the system.

 

[RDU Irish]

Not if you are not losing medical coverage. It's really just a matter of who is paying that bill (employer or government). Sure, lower income people are gaining something, but to be fair, those with insurance wouldn't really be losing anything. I do acknowledge that many wouldn't be happy about condensing the income gap in this way, but IMO it does not justify abandoning the minimum wage.

Thank you for illustrating how blind you are to the issues facing the person who signs the front of your paycheck. Please re-read my last few posts and try to understand what I am saying from and EMPLOYER perspective. I understand your EMPLOYEE perspective that you don't really care who pays for it as long as you get it.

Do understand that your employer pays 7.65% FICA taxes in addition to the FICA taxes that show up on your paystub? Obama decreased YOUR FICA taxes to 5.65% from 7.65% but the employer taxes stayed the same. That move does ZERO to reduce the cost of employing people, and goes a long way to pushing Social Security and Medicare into the red.

As for the bolded - I am holding minimum wage constant in this scenario. Like I tell my third grader, please understand the problem before you start blurting out answers. Sorry if that is a little condescending but you deserve it on this one.