Bureaucracy, politics and unintended consequences

[Mac1958]

.

I'm noticing a trend with a couple of current hot topics, the ACA and "living wage", and that's the predictable law of unintended consequences. Supporters, simplistically seeing only the positives, are either ignoring or are completely blind to the NEW negatives. Examples:

The ACA, by introducing a massive flood of low-low-reimbursement Medicaid patients to the health care system, are going to (and it's already happening) force providers of all kinds to (a) stop accepting new low-reimbursement patients, (b) trim their Medicaid patient censuses, (c) stop taking Medicaid of any kind, and/or (d) turn their practice into boutique care, accept only private-pay/supplemental pay patients, and fire unneeded staff. All of the above, of course, is going to produce profound and immediate doctor shortages and much longer waiting times.

A large and immediate jump in the "living wage", whatever the hell that is (I can never get a straight and specific answer), would cause employers to (a) slow down/stop hiring and/or lay people off as they adjust to the massive increase in labor costs, (b) increase their prices in an insanely competitive business environment, and/or (c) introduce technology where possible to replace the need for employees (having your fast food drive-thru order go to India, for example).

Providers and business owners who are going to have to bend over and take the new rules and laws are NOT going to just bend over and take it. When people who clearly don't understand this incredibly obvious fact are the same people who are making and defending these new laws and rules, big problems are on the way.

If I'm wrong, please show me precisely where. And hopefully without the traditional diversionary name-calling, insults and deflection. And please, none of the standard, "too bad, tough shit, all I know is that it gives more of the central planning that I crave". I've had enough of that one.

.

 

[Plasmaball]

10 bucks is not a living wage..its one pay check from crashing. Im finding more and more this idea that lay offs and such would only happen so the top guys at the company dont take a pay cut.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I would LOVE for the OP to play devils advocate on the living wage question. Without the customary deflection, of course.

I will help. A living wage was described by Teddy Roosevelt and others. Look here for some indication of what the term means:

Daily Kos: Progressive Economics 101: A Living Wage

Depending on where one lives, it can be anywhere from $10-20 per hour with full time hours and a decent benefits package. That amount allows a responsible citizen to live like a responsible citizen. It would allow a family with two working parents to provide for themselves......and not require us to subsidize the expenses of the company that they work for.

Now.....please pretend for a moment that you favor such a thing. If you try even a little, you will find enough data to support the claim that raising the minimum wage does not automatically trigger widespread job cuts.

Here is a place to start. The Job Loss Myth | Raise The Minimum Wage

Merry Christmas.

 

[occupied]

Your answer your own questions and then ask the rest of us to change your mind, which is probabaly impossible. You are applying simplistic supply-and-demand thinking to rather more complex situations.
In any case, things will sort themselves out eventually. There is no need to be predicting the worst here. Wages need to rise, not just the minimum wage, for the economy to really recover, medical costs likewise need to at least plateau. We are long, long past the point where all this needs happen but waiting around for the market to correct these things has been futile.

 

[OODA_Loop]

A living wage was described by Teddy Roosevelt and others. Look here for some indication of what the term means:

Daily Kos: Progressive Economics 101: A Living Wage

So an entry level job at WALMART or a burger flipper should provide:

"enough to secure the elements of a normal standard of living--

a standard high enough to make morality possible,

to provide for education and recreation,

to care for immature members of the family,

to maintain the family during periods of sickness,

and to permit of reasonable saving for old age" - Teddy Roosevelt

 

[occupied]

A living wage was described by Teddy Roosevelt and others. Look here for some indication of what the term means:

Daily Kos: Progressive Economics 101: A Living Wage

So an entry level job at WALMART or a burger flipper should provide:

"enough to secure the elements of a normal standard of living--

a standard high enough to make morality possible,

to provide for education and recreation,

to care for immature members of the family,

to maintain the family during periods of sickness,

and to permit of reasonable saving for old age" - Teddy Roosevelt

Yes, other countries mange it quite nicely but our own megacorps are activity engaged in a program to lower Americans expectations regarding the amount of ecominc security they receive for their labors knowing that the taxpayer will subsidize their miserly compensation with various social programs. Do you like that situation? Should we continue to heavily subsidize low, low wages for the sake of "low, low prices"?

 

[OODA_Loop]

A living wage was described by Teddy Roosevelt and others. Look here for some indication of what the term means:

Daily Kos: Progressive Economics 101: A Living Wage

So an entry level job at WALMART or a burger flipper should provide:

"enough to secure the elements of a normal standard of living--

a standard high enough to make morality possible,

to provide for education and recreation,

to care for immature members of the family,

to maintain the family during periods of sickness,

and to permit of reasonable saving for old age" - Teddy Roosevelt

Yes, other countries mange it quite nicely but our own megacorps are activity engaged in a program to lower Americans expectations regarding the amount of ecominc security they receive for their labors knowing that the taxpayer will subsidize their miserly compensation with various social programs. Do you like that situation? Should we continue to heavily subsidize low, low wages for the sake of "low, low prices"?

In what country can a burger flipper provide for and sustain a household, full care of dependents, education, healthcare and retirement ?

 

[occupied]

So an entry level job at WALMART or a burger flipper should provide:

Yes, other countries mange it quite nicely but our own megacorps are activity engaged in a program to lower Americans expectations regarding the amount of ecominc security they receive for their labors knowing that the taxpayer will subsidize their miserly compensation with various social programs. Do you like that situation? Should we continue to heavily subsidize low, low wages for the sake of "low, low prices"?

In what country can a burger flipper provide for and sustain a household, full care of dependents, education, healthcare and retirement ?

Who the hell works as a burger flipper for years on end? No one in a healthy economy. Can we at least agree that such a job should at least keep one in food and shelter? At the moment it does not, and there is no reason for it other than stockholders wanting the biggest possible return for their investment. Wages have not risen appreciably in twenty years, this race to achieve wage parity with China will ruin us more surely than any minimum wage hike.

 

[Mac1958]

.

So no direct responses to my primary point, unintended consequences?

.

 

[deltex1]

I would LOVE for the OP to play devils advocate on the living wage question. Without the customary deflection, of course.

I will help. A living wage was described by Teddy Roosevelt and others. Look here for some indication of what the term means:

Daily Kos: Progressive Economics 101: A Living Wage

Depending on where one lives, it can be anywhere from $10-20 per hour with full time hours and a decent benefits package. That amount allows a responsible citizen to live like a responsible citizen. It would allow a family with two working parents to provide for themselves......and not require us to subsidize the expenses of the company that they work for.

Now.....please pretend for a moment that you favor such a thing. If you try even a little, you will find enough data to support the claim that raising the minimum wage does not automatically trigger widespread job cuts.

Here is a place to start. The Job Loss Myth | Raise The Minimum Wage

Merry Christmas.

The minimum wage IS a subsidy!

 

[OODA_Loop]

Yes, other countries mange it quite nicely but our own megacorps are activity engaged in a program to lower Americans expectations regarding the amount of ecominc security they receive for their labors knowing that the taxpayer will subsidize their miserly compensation with various social programs. Do you like that situation? Should we continue to heavily subsidize low, low wages for the sake of "low, low prices"?

In what country can a burger flipper provide for and sustain a household, full care of dependents, education, healthcare and retirement ?

Who the hell works as a burger flipper for years on end? No one in a healthy economy. Can we at least agree that such a job should at least keep one in food and shelter? At the moment it does not, and there is no reason for it other than stockholders wanting the biggest possible return for their investment. Wages have not risen appreciably in twenty years, this race to achieve wage parity with China will ruin us more surely than any minimum wage hike.

A minimum wage job has never and will never provide a comfortable living. It will provide basic sustenance if costs are managed properly.

It is not somebody else's fault if you can't rise out of minimum wage.

 

[NYcarbineer]

.

I'm noticing a trend with a couple of current hot topics, the ACA and "living wage", and that's the predictable law of unintended consequences. Supporters, simplistically seeing only the positives, are either ignoring or are completely blind to the NEW negatives. Examples:

The ACA, by introducing a massive flood of low-low-reimbursement Medicaid patients to the health care system, are going to (and it's already happening) force providers of all kinds to (a) stop accepting new low-reimbursement patients, (b) trim their Medicaid patient censuses, (c) stop taking Medicaid of any kind, and/or (d) turn their practice into boutique care, accept only private-pay/supplemental pay patients, and fire unneeded staff. All of the above, of course, is going to produce profound and immediate doctor shortages and much longer waiting times.

A large and immediate jump in the "living wage", whatever the hell that is (I can never get a straight and specific answer), would cause employers to (a) slow down/stop hiring and/or lay people off as they adjust to the massive increase in labor costs, (b) increase their prices in an insanely competitive business environment, and/or (c) introduce technology where possible to replace the need for employees (having your fast food drive-thru order go to India, for example).

Providers and business owners who are going to have to bend over and take the new rules and laws are NOT going to just bend over and take it. When people who clearly don't understand this incredibly obvious fact are the same people who are making and defending these new laws and rules, big problems are on the way.

If I'm wrong, please show me precisely where. And hopefully without the traditional diversionary name-calling, insults and deflection. And please, none of the standard, "too bad, tough shit, all I know is that it gives more of the central planning that I crave". I've had enough of that one.

.

1. We shouldn't provide more affordable healthcare because we may put demand pressure on the medical business? So keeping affordable healthcare out of the hands of a certain segment of our population is the acceptable alternative...

2. The minimum wage peaked in 1969, adjusted for inflation. If keeping the minimum wage low is such a good thing, then we've done that for 45 years...

...what good things in the world of labor have happened as an intended consequence?

 

[deltex1]

I am working on a concept to create a new political party...call it the Subsidition Party...where everyone and everything is subsidized by the government making it "fair" for all...

 

[occupied]

In what country can a burger flipper provide for and sustain a household, full care of dependents, education, healthcare and retirement ?

Who the hell works as a burger flipper for years on end? No one in a healthy economy. Can we at least agree that such a job should at least keep one in food and shelter? At the moment it does not, and there is no reason for it other than stockholders wanting the biggest possible return for their investment. Wages have not risen appreciably in twenty years, this race to achieve wage parity with China will ruin us more surely than any minimum wage hike.

A minimum wage job has never and will never provide a comfortable living. It will provide basic sustenance if costs are managed properly.

It is not somebody else's fault if you can't rise out of minimum wage.

If all entry level jobs are hardly worth the expenses of child care and transportation there is no incentive to even get up and try to work have you considered that? Probably not.

 

[Seawytch]

When encountering unintended consequences, you improvise, adapt, overcome. Most things can be fixed.

Social Security had to be fixed, tweaked, improved (sometimes not). Same thing with Medicare.

Wages have to be fixed. If wealth continues to accumulate at the top, there will be a revolution of some kind. I'm not saying it will be a violent one, but when you look at times in our history that income disparity got this great there were revolutions at the ballot box that brought in waves of progressive legislators that passed laws like Glass-Steagall.

 

[OODA_Loop]

If all entry level jobs are hardly worth the expenses of child care and transportation there is no incentive to even get up and try to work have you considered that? Probably not.

I worked two jobs and went to school.

 

[Redfish]

In what country can a burger flipper provide for and sustain a household, full care of dependents, education, healthcare and retirement ?

Who the hell works as a burger flipper for years on end? No one in a healthy economy. Can we at least agree that such a job should at least keep one in food and shelter? At the moment it does not, and there is no reason for it other than stockholders wanting the biggest possible return for their investment. Wages have not risen appreciably in twenty years, this race to achieve wage parity with China will ruin us more surely than any minimum wage hike.

A minimum wage job has never and will never provide a comfortable living. It will provide basic sustenance if costs are managed properly.

It is not somebody else's fault if you can't rise out of minimum wage.[/QUOTE]








you hit the nail on the head. Libs and dems think it IS someone else's fault and that momma government should fix it.

 

[occupied]

When encountering unintended consequences, you improvise, adapt, overcome. Most things can be fixed.

Social Security had to be fixed, tweaked, improved (sometimes not). Same thing with Medicare.

Wages have to be fixed. If wealth continues to accumulate at the top, there will be a revolution of some kind. I'm not saying it will be a violent one, but when you look at times in our history that income disparity got this great there were revolutions at the ballot box that brought in waves of progressive legislators that passed laws like Glass-Steagall.

Not going to happen politically and peacefully this time. The coldly capitalist powers that be are working very successfully to make sure their power is never usurped by the people using the legitimate political channels again. There has been zero progress to even make sure they do not pump-and-dump us into another bubble collapse.

 

[occupied]

If all entry level jobs are hardly worth the expenses of child care and transportation there is no incentive to even get up and try to work have you considered that? Probably not.

I worked two jobs and went to school.

You say that like it was not an exhausting soul crushing experience.

 

[Redfish]

When encountering unintended consequences, you improvise, adapt, overcome. Most things can be fixed.

Social Security had to be fixed, tweaked, improved (sometimes not). Same thing with Medicare.

Wages have to be fixed. If wealth continues to accumulate at the top, there will be a revolution of some kind. I'm not saying it will be a violent one, but when you look at times in our history that income disparity got this great there were revolutions at the ballot box that brought in waves of progressive legislators that passed laws like Glass-Steagall.

Not going to happen politically and peacefully this time. The coldly capitalist powers that be are working very successfully to make sure their power is never usurped by the people using the legitimate political channels again. There has been zero progress to even make sure they do not pump-and-dump us into another bubble collapse.

My gawd! are you wearing your nazi uniform as you type that crap?