Did he have us prepared with enough tests? Did he really ban people from travel? It got here somehow. The country is shut down, clearly enough wasn’t done. Check the tweets, trump just recently started taking this seriously.
The primary responsibility for healthcare during epidemics is the hospital, city, county, and state in that order
The country is shut down. We weren’t prepared.
its a local responsibility first
This is a free market.....none of what you said is free market thinking....that is big government thinking...
Trump massively increased the trade deficits with China and Mexico. He achieved the exact opposite of what he promised.
Really?
www.reuters.com
Only repubs would cheer the country shutting down . You have some imagination.
Aren't many finance jobs for companies that might have a near monopoly in their industry? What type of medical? It certainly exists in food with huge companies like Mcdonalds. Bars? Is that a big employer?What service jobs aren't tied to some industry?There are few industries I can think of that don't have some form of this. The use of noncompete agreements is all over.Good question. I would say you want to first start by following the money. The wealth is here, we have plenty of jobs, where is the money going? I think we know the answer to that. So then why are markets so broken? Here is a good article I mostly agree with you should read.
Wage stagnation: economists look to new explanations | Harvard Magazine
Economists look to new explanations for wage stagnation.harvardmagazine.com
MARKET CONCENTRATION, the economist’s term for how much an industry is dominated by one or a few firms, touches ever more aspects of American life. From the obvious (the Amazons and Walmarts of the retail economy) to the obscure (the beer industry, which may appear diverse, is dominated by two firms), market concentration has increased in three-quarters of U.S. industries during the twenty-first century. This has had wide-ranging effects not only on consumers, but also, economists increasingly believe, on labor. “Fewer firms in a given industry makes it easier for them to have more bargaining power [over employees], and harder for workers to switch to another employer,” says Jason Furman, professor of the practice of economic policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, and former chair of the Obama administration’s Council of Economic Advisers.
Today’s labor markets increasingly look like a monopsony: a market in which there is only one buyer—the inverse of a monopoly, in which there is only one seller. The more an industry is dominated by a small number of corporations, the more those companies can control the cost of labor. Traditionally, Furman says, economists have relied on a supply-and-demand story about the labor market: “There’s a supply of workers and demand for workers, and the wage is what clears the market, just like the price of wheat is what clears the market for wheat. That explains a lot about wages, but it probably doesn’t explain everything…[T]hat research program went as far as it could.”
In the last three years, Furman explains, economists have looked to monopsony and other factors beyond market competition to explain the stagnation of Americans’ wages during the last few decades. Fewer companies in a given industry make it easier for those companies to coordinate, either indirectly or through overt collusion, to keep wages low. Think of a town with two big-box retail stores: each store knows what the other pays its cashiers, and neither wants to raise wages. Firms can also use noncompete agreements, which ban employees from taking jobs at rival companies, to prevent workers from finding new jobs elsewhere. About 24.5 percent of the American work force has signed a noncompete, according to one Brookings Institution analysis, and this number is not much lower (about 21 percent) for workers earning less than the median salary.
But wages stagnation is across the board, not limited to "given industries".
Why are you limiting the discussion to industries? Nothing prevents labor from moving from industry to service jobs.
Financial, Medical, Food, Bars, off the top of my head.
All industry is interconnected.
Everything is interconnected to everything.
Which is irrelevant to the question. That a dialysis center might be "connected" to the local hospital, does not mean that the local hospital will not hire a nurse from the lower paying center, if the center is a bunch of cheap bastards that are under paying her.
So just as someone who has been around cheap clinics.....
I don't know the specifics of this center, but if the clinic is getting Medicare or Medicaid patients, then this means they are capped at what they are paid by the government for service.
It may not be that "They are cheap!"... it might be they simply are not capable of paying more money.
So, why don't they lose all medical staff to other services that are not capped?
So there's a reason, but you are not going to like it.
The reason is simply that the people who work there are generally bad, or they are retired who don't care, or they are students who are using the tuition forgiveness program to get their loans eliminate, and thus are just tolerating it.
People hate hearing that, but it's the reality. You have a few students fresh out of school, that are still learning how to use a needle, that are there because they are putting up with it so they can get their loans forgiven. Then you have some people way over the hill, in their 60s and 70s, who are only doing this to get them out of the house.
And lastly you have people that are just bad. People that got fired from their good paying job, because they were bad, and the hospital found them a liability. So they got a job at Medicare/Medicaid facilities because such clinics are desperate for anyone, since no one wants to work for peanuts. So they hire people that no profit driven hospital would ever hire. As much as left-wingers decry profit motive.... profit motive keeps patients alive and healing, because dead people don't pay bills.
Socialist hospitals have no such worry, since the government pays the bills. A dead patient isn't a negative at all to the finances.
So without a profit motive, socialist clinics doing Medicare and Medicaid patients, have no problem hiring unwanted Nurses and Doctors.
In, a healthier economy with a better labor market, even that would not be enough. THey would HAVE to offer better wages even to keep the dregs.
Have you ever been in a position, where as the employEE, you have the leverage and your employER, needed you more than you needed the job?
I have. It was glorious.
I want to share that joy, with as many of my fellow workers as possible.
Aren't many finance jobs for companies that might have a near monopoly in their industry? What type of medical? It certainly exists in food with huge companies like Mcdonalds. Bars? Is that a big employer?What service jobs aren't tied to some industry?There are few industries I can think of that don't have some form of this. The use of noncompete agreements is all over.Good question. I would say you want to first start by following the money. The wealth is here, we have plenty of jobs, where is the money going? I think we know the answer to that. So then why are markets so broken? Here is a good article I mostly agree with you should read.
Wage stagnation: economists look to new explanations | Harvard Magazine
Economists look to new explanations for wage stagnation.
MARKET CONCENTRATION, the economist’s term for how much an industry is dominated by one or a few firms, touches ever more aspects of American life. From the obvious (the Amazons and Walmarts of the retail economy) to the obscure (the beer industry, which may appear diverse, is dominated by two firms), market concentration has increased in three-quarters of U.S. industries during the twenty-first century. This has had wide-ranging effects not only on consumers, but also, economists increasingly believe, on labor. “Fewer firms in a given industry makes it easier for them to have more bargaining power [over employees], and harder for workers to switch to another employer,” says Jason Furman, professor of the practice of economic policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, and former chair of the Obama administration’s Council of Economic Advisers.
Today’s labor markets increasingly look like a monopsony: a market in which there is only one buyer—the inverse of a monopoly, in which there is only one seller. The more an industry is dominated by a small number of corporations, the more those companies can control the cost of labor. Traditionally, Furman says, economists have relied on a supply-and-demand story about the labor market: “There’s a supply of workers and demand for workers, and the wage is what clears the market, just like the price of wheat is what clears the market for wheat. That explains a lot about wages, but it probably doesn’t explain everything…[T]hat research program went as far as it could.”
In the last three years, Furman explains, economists have looked to monopsony and other factors beyond market competition to explain the stagnation of Americans’ wages during the last few decades. Fewer companies in a given industry make it easier for those companies to coordinate, either indirectly or through overt collusion, to keep wages low. Think of a town with two big-box retail stores: each store knows what the other pays its cashiers, and neither wants to raise wages. Firms can also use noncompete agreements, which ban employees from taking jobs at rival companies, to prevent workers from finding new jobs elsewhere. About 24.5 percent of the American work force has signed a noncompete, according to one Brookings Institution analysis, and this number is not much lower (about 21 percent) for workers earning less than the median salary.
But wages stagnation is across the board, not limited to "given industries".
Why are you limiting the discussion to industries? Nothing prevents labor from moving from industry to service jobs.
Financial, Medical, Food, Bars, off the top of my head.
All industry is interconnected.
Everything is interconnected to everything.
Which is irrelevant to the question. That a dialysis center might be "connected" to the local hospital, does not mean that the local hospital will not hire a nurse from the lower paying center, if the center is a bunch of cheap bastards that are under paying her.
So just as someone who has been around cheap clinics.....
I don't know the specifics of this center, but if the clinic is getting Medicare or Medicaid patients, then this means they are capped at what they are paid by the government for service.
It may not be that "They are cheap!"... it might be they simply are not capable of paying more money.
So, why don't they lose all medical staff to other services that are not capped?
So there's a reason, but you are not going to like it.
The reason is simply that the people who work there are generally bad, or they are retired who don't care, or they are students who are using the tuition forgiveness program to get their loans eliminate, and thus are just tolerating it.
People hate hearing that, but it's the reality. You have a few students fresh out of school, that are still learning how to use a needle, that are there because they are putting up with it so they can get their loans forgiven. Then you have some people way over the hill, in their 60s and 70s, who are only doing this to get them out of the house.
And lastly you have people that are just bad. People that got fired from their good paying job, because they were bad, and the hospital found them a liability. So they got a job at Medicare/Medicaid facilities because such clinics are desperate for anyone, since no one wants to work for peanuts. So they hire people that no profit driven hospital would ever hire. As much as left-wingers decry profit motive.... profit motive keeps patients alive and healing, because dead people don't pay bills.
Socialist hospitals have no such worry, since the government pays the bills. A dead patient isn't a negative at all to the finances.
So without a profit motive, socialist clinics doing Medicare and Medicaid patients, have no problem hiring unwanted Nurses and Doctors.
In, a healthier economy with a better labor market, even that would not be enough. THey would HAVE to offer better wages even to keep the dregs.
Have you ever been in a position, where as the employEE, you have the leverage and your employER, needed you more than you needed the job?
I have. It was glorious.
I want to share that joy, with as many of my fellow workers as possible.
No, that's not true. Unwanted employees can easily be held onto at below market wages. I know this because I talk to these people, and they openly tell me why they were for below market wages.
Also you need to understand a fundamental difference between typical employment, and health care employment.
When I mean that some of the nurses or doctors are bad... I mean that they are employees that private care systems simply don't want at any price.
The example I always point to, is this story from over 10 years ago, about a doctor at a VA hospital. So this guy went in for routine minor surgery. The kind of surgery that less than half a percent die in. He died, and his wife was in the hospital, when a nurse approached her, and whispered 'get a lawyer' and walked away. So she hired a lawyer and investigator, and found out this doctor had been fired from 3 private hospitals for killing patients.
But of course, the VA desperate for doctors because government run anything is crap, and pays nothing, had no problem hiring a doctor that can't get employment anywhere else, because he was terrible. Remember a VA hospital doesn't lose any money when a Vet dies. It just means the wait list is one shorter now.
That's what I'm talking about. Some of the people who work at Medicare and Medicaid clinics, are people who are so bad at their jobs, they are simply not wanted in the market. So yes, if this clinic is a Medicare Medicaid clinic, then it is likely desperate for people willing to work for less, and people who simply suck too bad to work in private clinics, will have no problem working there, even for below market wages.
Have you ever been in a position, where as the employEE, you have the leverage and your employER, needed you more than you needed the job?
Sure. I've been in that position most of my life. Out of my last... 10 employers I'd guess, at least 8 of them did everything they could to prevent me from leaving the company.
But you need to grasp that this is because I'm a good employee. I'd say at least 1/3 to almost half, are terrible employees, and them leaving is a positive more than a negative. None of these people are likely to be paid more, and most likely less, anywhere else.
In fact I've heard that first hand. "I deserve a raise! I'm worth more than this!" Ok... go get a job that pays more. (long pause) "Well no one else will pay me as much as I'm earning here"..... dur... then you are not worth more than this, are you? In fact maybe this company is over paying you, if any other employer would pay you less.
You think the country shut down is a sign of success?
Here employers complain they can’t get good people. doesn’t seem to raise wages though. The market is broke for the reasons I’ve explained.Aren't many finance jobs for companies that might have a near monopoly in their industry? What type of medical? It certainly exists in food with huge companies like Mcdonalds. Bars? Is that a big employer?What service jobs aren't tied to some industry?There are few industries I can think of that don't have some form of this. The use of noncompete agreements is all over.Good question. I would say you want to first start by following the money. The wealth is here, we have plenty of jobs, where is the money going? I think we know the answer to that. So then why are markets so broken? Here is a good article I mostly agree with you should read.
Wage stagnation: economists look to new explanations | Harvard Magazine
Economists look to new explanations for wage stagnation.
MARKET CONCENTRATION, the economist’s term for how much an industry is dominated by one or a few firms, touches ever more aspects of American life. From the obvious (the Amazons and Walmarts of the retail economy) to the obscure (the beer industry, which may appear diverse, is dominated by two firms), market concentration has increased in three-quarters of U.S. industries during the twenty-first century. This has had wide-ranging effects not only on consumers, but also, economists increasingly believe, on labor. “Fewer firms in a given industry makes it easier for them to have more bargaining power [over employees], and harder for workers to switch to another employer,” says Jason Furman, professor of the practice of economic policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, and former chair of the Obama administration’s Council of Economic Advisers.
Today’s labor markets increasingly look like a monopsony: a market in which there is only one buyer—the inverse of a monopoly, in which there is only one seller. The more an industry is dominated by a small number of corporations, the more those companies can control the cost of labor. Traditionally, Furman says, economists have relied on a supply-and-demand story about the labor market: “There’s a supply of workers and demand for workers, and the wage is what clears the market, just like the price of wheat is what clears the market for wheat. That explains a lot about wages, but it probably doesn’t explain everything…[T]hat research program went as far as it could.”
In the last three years, Furman explains, economists have looked to monopsony and other factors beyond market competition to explain the stagnation of Americans’ wages during the last few decades. Fewer companies in a given industry make it easier for those companies to coordinate, either indirectly or through overt collusion, to keep wages low. Think of a town with two big-box retail stores: each store knows what the other pays its cashiers, and neither wants to raise wages. Firms can also use noncompete agreements, which ban employees from taking jobs at rival companies, to prevent workers from finding new jobs elsewhere. About 24.5 percent of the American work force has signed a noncompete, according to one Brookings Institution analysis, and this number is not much lower (about 21 percent) for workers earning less than the median salary.
But wages stagnation is across the board, not limited to "given industries".
Why are you limiting the discussion to industries? Nothing prevents labor from moving from industry to service jobs.
Financial, Medical, Food, Bars, off the top of my head.
All industry is interconnected.
Everything is interconnected to everything.
Which is irrelevant to the question. That a dialysis center might be "connected" to the local hospital, does not mean that the local hospital will not hire a nurse from the lower paying center, if the center is a bunch of cheap bastards that are under paying her.
So just as someone who has been around cheap clinics.....
I don't know the specifics of this center, but if the clinic is getting Medicare or Medicaid patients, then this means they are capped at what they are paid by the government for service.
It may not be that "They are cheap!"... it might be they simply are not capable of paying more money.
So, why don't they lose all medical staff to other services that are not capped?
So there's a reason, but you are not going to like it.
The reason is simply that the people who work there are generally bad, or they are retired who don't care, or they are students who are using the tuition forgiveness program to get their loans eliminate, and thus are just tolerating it.
People hate hearing that, but it's the reality. You have a few students fresh out of school, that are still learning how to use a needle, that are there because they are putting up with it so they can get their loans forgiven. Then you have some people way over the hill, in their 60s and 70s, who are only doing this to get them out of the house.
And lastly you have people that are just bad. People that got fired from their good paying job, because they were bad, and the hospital found them a liability. So they got a job at Medicare/Medicaid facilities because such clinics are desperate for anyone, since no one wants to work for peanuts. So they hire people that no profit driven hospital would ever hire. As much as left-wingers decry profit motive.... profit motive keeps patients alive and healing, because dead people don't pay bills.
Socialist hospitals have no such worry, since the government pays the bills. A dead patient isn't a negative at all to the finances.
So without a profit motive, socialist clinics doing Medicare and Medicaid patients, have no problem hiring unwanted Nurses and Doctors.
In, a healthier economy with a better labor market, even that would not be enough. THey would HAVE to offer better wages even to keep the dregs.
Have you ever been in a position, where as the employEE, you have the leverage and your employER, needed you more than you needed the job?
I have. It was glorious.
I want to share that joy, with as many of my fellow workers as possible.
No, that's not true. Unwanted employees can easily be held onto at below market wages. I know this because I talk to these people, and they openly tell me why they were for below market wages.
Also you need to understand a fundamental difference between typical employment, and health care employment.
When I mean that some of the nurses or doctors are bad... I mean that they are employees that private care systems simply don't want at any price.
The example I always point to, is this story from over 10 years ago, about a doctor at a VA hospital. So this guy went in for routine minor surgery. The kind of surgery that less than half a percent die in. He died, and his wife was in the hospital, when a nurse approached her, and whispered 'get a lawyer' and walked away. So she hired a lawyer and investigator, and found out this doctor had been fired from 3 private hospitals for killing patients.
But of course, the VA desperate for doctors because government run anything is crap, and pays nothing, had no problem hiring a doctor that can't get employment anywhere else, because he was terrible. Remember a VA hospital doesn't lose any money when a Vet dies. It just means the wait list is one shorter now.
That's what I'm talking about. Some of the people who work at Medicare and Medicaid clinics, are people who are so bad at their jobs, they are simply not wanted in the market. So yes, if this clinic is a Medicare Medicaid clinic, then it is likely desperate for people willing to work for less, and people who simply suck too bad to work in private clinics, will have no problem working there, even for below market wages.
Have you ever been in a position, where as the employEE, you have the leverage and your employER, needed you more than you needed the job?
Sure. I've been in that position most of my life. Out of my last... 10 employers I'd guess, at least 8 of them did everything they could to prevent me from leaving the company.
But you need to grasp that this is because I'm a good employee. I'd say at least 1/3 to almost half, are terrible employees, and them leaving is a positive more than a negative. None of these people are likely to be paid more, and most likely less, anywhere else.
In fact I've heard that first hand. "I deserve a raise! I'm worth more than this!" Ok... go get a job that pays more. (long pause) "Well no one else will pay me as much as I'm earning here"..... dur... then you are not worth more than this, are you? In fact maybe this company is over paying you, if any other employer would pay you less.
I've not seen gross incompetence like you suggest.
What I have seen is job openings that get massive numbers of applicants so there is no pressure on the employer to work to hold onto a good employee.
Or to raise wages.
Here employers complain they can’t get good people. doesn’t seem to raise wages though. The market is broke for the reasons I’ve explained.Aren't many finance jobs for companies that might have a near monopoly in their industry? What type of medical? It certainly exists in food with huge companies like Mcdonalds. Bars? Is that a big employer?What service jobs aren't tied to some industry?There are few industries I can think of that don't have some form of this. The use of noncompete agreements is all over.Good question. I would say you want to first start by following the money. The wealth is here, we have plenty of jobs, where is the money going? I think we know the answer to that. So then why are markets so broken? Here is a good article I mostly agree with you should read.
Wage stagnation: economists look to new explanations | Harvard Magazine
Economists look to new explanations for wage stagnation.
MARKET CONCENTRATION, the economist’s term for how much an industry is dominated by one or a few firms, touches ever more aspects of American life. From the obvious (the Amazons and Walmarts of the retail economy) to the obscure (the beer industry, which may appear diverse, is dominated by two firms), market concentration has increased in three-quarters of U.S. industries during the twenty-first century. This has had wide-ranging effects not only on consumers, but also, economists increasingly believe, on labor. “Fewer firms in a given industry makes it easier for them to have more bargaining power [over employees], and harder for workers to switch to another employer,” says Jason Furman, professor of the practice of economic policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, and former chair of the Obama administration’s Council of Economic Advisers.
Today’s labor markets increasingly look like a monopsony: a market in which there is only one buyer—the inverse of a monopoly, in which there is only one seller. The more an industry is dominated by a small number of corporations, the more those companies can control the cost of labor. Traditionally, Furman says, economists have relied on a supply-and-demand story about the labor market: “There’s a supply of workers and demand for workers, and the wage is what clears the market, just like the price of wheat is what clears the market for wheat. That explains a lot about wages, but it probably doesn’t explain everything…[T]hat research program went as far as it could.”
In the last three years, Furman explains, economists have looked to monopsony and other factors beyond market competition to explain the stagnation of Americans’ wages during the last few decades. Fewer companies in a given industry make it easier for those companies to coordinate, either indirectly or through overt collusion, to keep wages low. Think of a town with two big-box retail stores: each store knows what the other pays its cashiers, and neither wants to raise wages. Firms can also use noncompete agreements, which ban employees from taking jobs at rival companies, to prevent workers from finding new jobs elsewhere. About 24.5 percent of the American work force has signed a noncompete, according to one Brookings Institution analysis, and this number is not much lower (about 21 percent) for workers earning less than the median salary.
But wages stagnation is across the board, not limited to "given industries".
Why are you limiting the discussion to industries? Nothing prevents labor from moving from industry to service jobs.
Financial, Medical, Food, Bars, off the top of my head.
All industry is interconnected.
Everything is interconnected to everything.
Which is irrelevant to the question. That a dialysis center might be "connected" to the local hospital, does not mean that the local hospital will not hire a nurse from the lower paying center, if the center is a bunch of cheap bastards that are under paying her.
So just as someone who has been around cheap clinics.....
I don't know the specifics of this center, but if the clinic is getting Medicare or Medicaid patients, then this means they are capped at what they are paid by the government for service.
It may not be that "They are cheap!"... it might be they simply are not capable of paying more money.
So, why don't they lose all medical staff to other services that are not capped?
So there's a reason, but you are not going to like it.
The reason is simply that the people who work there are generally bad, or they are retired who don't care, or they are students who are using the tuition forgiveness program to get their loans eliminate, and thus are just tolerating it.
People hate hearing that, but it's the reality. You have a few students fresh out of school, that are still learning how to use a needle, that are there because they are putting up with it so they can get their loans forgiven. Then you have some people way over the hill, in their 60s and 70s, who are only doing this to get them out of the house.
And lastly you have people that are just bad. People that got fired from their good paying job, because they were bad, and the hospital found them a liability. So they got a job at Medicare/Medicaid facilities because such clinics are desperate for anyone, since no one wants to work for peanuts. So they hire people that no profit driven hospital would ever hire. As much as left-wingers decry profit motive.... profit motive keeps patients alive and healing, because dead people don't pay bills.
Socialist hospitals have no such worry, since the government pays the bills. A dead patient isn't a negative at all to the finances.
So without a profit motive, socialist clinics doing Medicare and Medicaid patients, have no problem hiring unwanted Nurses and Doctors.
In, a healthier economy with a better labor market, even that would not be enough. THey would HAVE to offer better wages even to keep the dregs.
Have you ever been in a position, where as the employEE, you have the leverage and your employER, needed you more than you needed the job?
I have. It was glorious.
I want to share that joy, with as many of my fellow workers as possible.
No, that's not true. Unwanted employees can easily be held onto at below market wages. I know this because I talk to these people, and they openly tell me why they were for below market wages.
Also you need to understand a fundamental difference between typical employment, and health care employment.
When I mean that some of the nurses or doctors are bad... I mean that they are employees that private care systems simply don't want at any price.
The example I always point to, is this story from over 10 years ago, about a doctor at a VA hospital. So this guy went in for routine minor surgery. The kind of surgery that less than half a percent die in. He died, and his wife was in the hospital, when a nurse approached her, and whispered 'get a lawyer' and walked away. So she hired a lawyer and investigator, and found out this doctor had been fired from 3 private hospitals for killing patients.
But of course, the VA desperate for doctors because government run anything is crap, and pays nothing, had no problem hiring a doctor that can't get employment anywhere else, because he was terrible. Remember a VA hospital doesn't lose any money when a Vet dies. It just means the wait list is one shorter now.
That's what I'm talking about. Some of the people who work at Medicare and Medicaid clinics, are people who are so bad at their jobs, they are simply not wanted in the market. So yes, if this clinic is a Medicare Medicaid clinic, then it is likely desperate for people willing to work for less, and people who simply suck too bad to work in private clinics, will have no problem working there, even for below market wages.
Have you ever been in a position, where as the employEE, you have the leverage and your employER, needed you more than you needed the job?
Sure. I've been in that position most of my life. Out of my last... 10 employers I'd guess, at least 8 of them did everything they could to prevent me from leaving the company.
But you need to grasp that this is because I'm a good employee. I'd say at least 1/3 to almost half, are terrible employees, and them leaving is a positive more than a negative. None of these people are likely to be paid more, and most likely less, anywhere else.
In fact I've heard that first hand. "I deserve a raise! I'm worth more than this!" Ok... go get a job that pays more. (long pause) "Well no one else will pay me as much as I'm earning here"..... dur... then you are not worth more than this, are you? In fact maybe this company is over paying you, if any other employer would pay you less.
I've not seen gross incompetence like you suggest.
What I have seen is job openings that get massive numbers of applicants so there is no pressure on the employer to work to hold onto a good employee.
Or to raise wages.
Yes you choose to believe in nonsense you can’t even explain. Funny.Here employers complain they can’t get good people. doesn’t seem to raise wages though. The market is broke for the reasons I’ve explained.Aren't many finance jobs for companies that might have a near monopoly in their industry? What type of medical? It certainly exists in food with huge companies like Mcdonalds. Bars? Is that a big employer?What service jobs aren't tied to some industry?There are few industries I can think of that don't have some form of this. The use of noncompete agreements is all over.Good question. I would say you want to first start by following the money. The wealth is here, we have plenty of jobs, where is the money going? I think we know the answer to that. So then why are markets so broken? Here is a good article I mostly agree with you should read.
Wage stagnation: economists look to new explanations | Harvard Magazine
Economists look to new explanations for wage stagnation.
MARKET CONCENTRATION, the economist’s term for how much an industry is dominated by one or a few firms, touches ever more aspects of American life. From the obvious (the Amazons and Walmarts of the retail economy) to the obscure (the beer industry, which may appear diverse, is dominated by two firms), market concentration has increased in three-quarters of U.S. industries during the twenty-first century. This has had wide-ranging effects not only on consumers, but also, economists increasingly believe, on labor. “Fewer firms in a given industry makes it easier for them to have more bargaining power [over employees], and harder for workers to switch to another employer,” says Jason Furman, professor of the practice of economic policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, and former chair of the Obama administration’s Council of Economic Advisers.
Today’s labor markets increasingly look like a monopsony: a market in which there is only one buyer—the inverse of a monopoly, in which there is only one seller. The more an industry is dominated by a small number of corporations, the more those companies can control the cost of labor. Traditionally, Furman says, economists have relied on a supply-and-demand story about the labor market: “There’s a supply of workers and demand for workers, and the wage is what clears the market, just like the price of wheat is what clears the market for wheat. That explains a lot about wages, but it probably doesn’t explain everything…[T]hat research program went as far as it could.”
In the last three years, Furman explains, economists have looked to monopsony and other factors beyond market competition to explain the stagnation of Americans’ wages during the last few decades. Fewer companies in a given industry make it easier for those companies to coordinate, either indirectly or through overt collusion, to keep wages low. Think of a town with two big-box retail stores: each store knows what the other pays its cashiers, and neither wants to raise wages. Firms can also use noncompete agreements, which ban employees from taking jobs at rival companies, to prevent workers from finding new jobs elsewhere. About 24.5 percent of the American work force has signed a noncompete, according to one Brookings Institution analysis, and this number is not much lower (about 21 percent) for workers earning less than the median salary.
But wages stagnation is across the board, not limited to "given industries".
Why are you limiting the discussion to industries? Nothing prevents labor from moving from industry to service jobs.
Financial, Medical, Food, Bars, off the top of my head.
All industry is interconnected.
Everything is interconnected to everything.
Which is irrelevant to the question. That a dialysis center might be "connected" to the local hospital, does not mean that the local hospital will not hire a nurse from the lower paying center, if the center is a bunch of cheap bastards that are under paying her.
So just as someone who has been around cheap clinics.....
I don't know the specifics of this center, but if the clinic is getting Medicare or Medicaid patients, then this means they are capped at what they are paid by the government for service.
It may not be that "They are cheap!"... it might be they simply are not capable of paying more money.
So, why don't they lose all medical staff to other services that are not capped?
So there's a reason, but you are not going to like it.
The reason is simply that the people who work there are generally bad, or they are retired who don't care, or they are students who are using the tuition forgiveness program to get their loans eliminate, and thus are just tolerating it.
People hate hearing that, but it's the reality. You have a few students fresh out of school, that are still learning how to use a needle, that are there because they are putting up with it so they can get their loans forgiven. Then you have some people way over the hill, in their 60s and 70s, who are only doing this to get them out of the house.
And lastly you have people that are just bad. People that got fired from their good paying job, because they were bad, and the hospital found them a liability. So they got a job at Medicare/Medicaid facilities because such clinics are desperate for anyone, since no one wants to work for peanuts. So they hire people that no profit driven hospital would ever hire. As much as left-wingers decry profit motive.... profit motive keeps patients alive and healing, because dead people don't pay bills.
Socialist hospitals have no such worry, since the government pays the bills. A dead patient isn't a negative at all to the finances.
So without a profit motive, socialist clinics doing Medicare and Medicaid patients, have no problem hiring unwanted Nurses and Doctors.
In, a healthier economy with a better labor market, even that would not be enough. THey would HAVE to offer better wages even to keep the dregs.
Have you ever been in a position, where as the employEE, you have the leverage and your employER, needed you more than you needed the job?
I have. It was glorious.
I want to share that joy, with as many of my fellow workers as possible.
No, that's not true. Unwanted employees can easily be held onto at below market wages. I know this because I talk to these people, and they openly tell me why they were for below market wages.
Also you need to understand a fundamental difference between typical employment, and health care employment.
When I mean that some of the nurses or doctors are bad... I mean that they are employees that private care systems simply don't want at any price.
The example I always point to, is this story from over 10 years ago, about a doctor at a VA hospital. So this guy went in for routine minor surgery. The kind of surgery that less than half a percent die in. He died, and his wife was in the hospital, when a nurse approached her, and whispered 'get a lawyer' and walked away. So she hired a lawyer and investigator, and found out this doctor had been fired from 3 private hospitals for killing patients.
But of course, the VA desperate for doctors because government run anything is crap, and pays nothing, had no problem hiring a doctor that can't get employment anywhere else, because he was terrible. Remember a VA hospital doesn't lose any money when a Vet dies. It just means the wait list is one shorter now.
That's what I'm talking about. Some of the people who work at Medicare and Medicaid clinics, are people who are so bad at their jobs, they are simply not wanted in the market. So yes, if this clinic is a Medicare Medicaid clinic, then it is likely desperate for people willing to work for less, and people who simply suck too bad to work in private clinics, will have no problem working there, even for below market wages.
Have you ever been in a position, where as the employEE, you have the leverage and your employER, needed you more than you needed the job?
Sure. I've been in that position most of my life. Out of my last... 10 employers I'd guess, at least 8 of them did everything they could to prevent me from leaving the company.
But you need to grasp that this is because I'm a good employee. I'd say at least 1/3 to almost half, are terrible employees, and them leaving is a positive more than a negative. None of these people are likely to be paid more, and most likely less, anywhere else.
In fact I've heard that first hand. "I deserve a raise! I'm worth more than this!" Ok... go get a job that pays more. (long pause) "Well no one else will pay me as much as I'm earning here"..... dur... then you are not worth more than this, are you? In fact maybe this company is over paying you, if any other employer would pay you less.
I've not seen gross incompetence like you suggest.
What I have seen is job openings that get massive numbers of applicants so there is no pressure on the employer to work to hold onto a good employee.
Or to raise wages.
You've explained your opinion about why that is.
Stating it again, and more confidently, is good technique.
I though, am beyond being convinced by such tricks.
Perhaps, if you do it again and with more passion? Perhaps, that will sway me.
Look at what the employment rate has been. We have labor shortages. Blaming trade makes no sense. If they are stealing our jobs why do we have so many?I'm amazed you believe it is trade even though all the evidence says it's not, but then you are so resistant to something with so much evidence. Just amazing. Again, the wage market is clearly not healthy. Really low unemployment and labor shortages should increase wages.What service jobs aren't tied to some industry?There are few industries I can think of that don't have some form of this. The use of noncompete agreements is all over.Good question. I would say you want to first start by following the money. The wealth is here, we have plenty of jobs, where is the money going? I think we know the answer to that. So then why are markets so broken? Here is a good article I mostly agree with you should read.
Wage stagnation: economists look to new explanations | Harvard Magazine
Economists look to new explanations for wage stagnation.
MARKET CONCENTRATION, the economist’s term for how much an industry is dominated by one or a few firms, touches ever more aspects of American life. From the obvious (the Amazons and Walmarts of the retail economy) to the obscure (the beer industry, which may appear diverse, is dominated by two firms), market concentration has increased in three-quarters of U.S. industries during the twenty-first century. This has had wide-ranging effects not only on consumers, but also, economists increasingly believe, on labor. “Fewer firms in a given industry makes it easier for them to have more bargaining power [over employees], and harder for workers to switch to another employer,” says Jason Furman, professor of the practice of economic policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, and former chair of the Obama administration’s Council of Economic Advisers.
Today’s labor markets increasingly look like a monopsony: a market in which there is only one buyer—the inverse of a monopoly, in which there is only one seller. The more an industry is dominated by a small number of corporations, the more those companies can control the cost of labor. Traditionally, Furman says, economists have relied on a supply-and-demand story about the labor market: “There’s a supply of workers and demand for workers, and the wage is what clears the market, just like the price of wheat is what clears the market for wheat. That explains a lot about wages, but it probably doesn’t explain everything…[T]hat research program went as far as it could.”
In the last three years, Furman explains, economists have looked to monopsony and other factors beyond market competition to explain the stagnation of Americans’ wages during the last few decades. Fewer companies in a given industry make it easier for those companies to coordinate, either indirectly or through overt collusion, to keep wages low. Think of a town with two big-box retail stores: each store knows what the other pays its cashiers, and neither wants to raise wages. Firms can also use noncompete agreements, which ban employees from taking jobs at rival companies, to prevent workers from finding new jobs elsewhere. About 24.5 percent of the American work force has signed a noncompete, according to one Brookings Institution analysis, and this number is not much lower (about 21 percent) for workers earning less than the median salary.
But wages stagnation is across the board, not limited to "given industries".
Why are you limiting the discussion to industries? Nothing prevents labor from moving from industry to service jobs.
Financial, Medical, Food, Bars, off the top of my head.
From dialysis to hospitals, U.S. health care is full of monopolies
Markets are consolidating out in the open and behind the scenes.www.axios.com
If the dialysis centers are being especially cheap, just about everyone in it, could transfer to another modality, sometimes without any training.
I'm just not seeing this factor as the answer that you think it is.
Supply and demand are the wide ranging issues, that can effect EVERYTHING at once.
Trade and immigration means that American labor is competing almost directly with Third World labor.
I'm amazed you DON'T believe it is trade.
Not stealing jobs, suppressing wages.
I don't think they are even suppressing wages. Seriously, look at wages between the US and virtually anywhere in the world.
We have the highest wages on the planet. We have wages higher than 1st world Europe.
If you think our wages are being suppressed... then compared to where? Where in the world can you get paid more money to do the same job we do here?
Where?
If trade or competition with 3rd world countries is keeping wages down..... then they are doing a really sucky job at keeping wages down.
Compared to the way that wages used to rise with productivity. Which has not happened in decades.
Yes you choose to believe in nonsense you can’t even explain. Funny.Here employers complain they can’t get good people. doesn’t seem to raise wages though. The market is broke for the reasons I’ve explained.Aren't many finance jobs for companies that might have a near monopoly in their industry? What type of medical? It certainly exists in food with huge companies like Mcdonalds. Bars? Is that a big employer?What service jobs aren't tied to some industry?There are few industries I can think of that don't have some form of this. The use of noncompete agreements is all over.Good question. I would say you want to first start by following the money. The wealth is here, we have plenty of jobs, where is the money going? I think we know the answer to that. So then why are markets so broken? Here is a good article I mostly agree with you should read.
Wage stagnation: economists look to new explanations | Harvard Magazine
Economists look to new explanations for wage stagnation.
MARKET CONCENTRATION, the economist’s term for how much an industry is dominated by one or a few firms, touches ever more aspects of American life. From the obvious (the Amazons and Walmarts of the retail economy) to the obscure (the beer industry, which may appear diverse, is dominated by two firms), market concentration has increased in three-quarters of U.S. industries during the twenty-first century. This has had wide-ranging effects not only on consumers, but also, economists increasingly believe, on labor. “Fewer firms in a given industry makes it easier for them to have more bargaining power [over employees], and harder for workers to switch to another employer,” says Jason Furman, professor of the practice of economic policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, and former chair of the Obama administration’s Council of Economic Advisers.
Today’s labor markets increasingly look like a monopsony: a market in which there is only one buyer—the inverse of a monopoly, in which there is only one seller. The more an industry is dominated by a small number of corporations, the more those companies can control the cost of labor. Traditionally, Furman says, economists have relied on a supply-and-demand story about the labor market: “There’s a supply of workers and demand for workers, and the wage is what clears the market, just like the price of wheat is what clears the market for wheat. That explains a lot about wages, but it probably doesn’t explain everything…[T]hat research program went as far as it could.”
In the last three years, Furman explains, economists have looked to monopsony and other factors beyond market competition to explain the stagnation of Americans’ wages during the last few decades. Fewer companies in a given industry make it easier for those companies to coordinate, either indirectly or through overt collusion, to keep wages low. Think of a town with two big-box retail stores: each store knows what the other pays its cashiers, and neither wants to raise wages. Firms can also use noncompete agreements, which ban employees from taking jobs at rival companies, to prevent workers from finding new jobs elsewhere. About 24.5 percent of the American work force has signed a noncompete, according to one Brookings Institution analysis, and this number is not much lower (about 21 percent) for workers earning less than the median salary.
But wages stagnation is across the board, not limited to "given industries".
Why are you limiting the discussion to industries? Nothing prevents labor from moving from industry to service jobs.
Financial, Medical, Food, Bars, off the top of my head.
All industry is interconnected.
Everything is interconnected to everything.
Which is irrelevant to the question. That a dialysis center might be "connected" to the local hospital, does not mean that the local hospital will not hire a nurse from the lower paying center, if the center is a bunch of cheap bastards that are under paying her.
So just as someone who has been around cheap clinics.....
I don't know the specifics of this center, but if the clinic is getting Medicare or Medicaid patients, then this means they are capped at what they are paid by the government for service.
It may not be that "They are cheap!"... it might be they simply are not capable of paying more money.
So, why don't they lose all medical staff to other services that are not capped?
So there's a reason, but you are not going to like it.
The reason is simply that the people who work there are generally bad, or they are retired who don't care, or they are students who are using the tuition forgiveness program to get their loans eliminate, and thus are just tolerating it.
People hate hearing that, but it's the reality. You have a few students fresh out of school, that are still learning how to use a needle, that are there because they are putting up with it so they can get their loans forgiven. Then you have some people way over the hill, in their 60s and 70s, who are only doing this to get them out of the house.
And lastly you have people that are just bad. People that got fired from their good paying job, because they were bad, and the hospital found them a liability. So they got a job at Medicare/Medicaid facilities because such clinics are desperate for anyone, since no one wants to work for peanuts. So they hire people that no profit driven hospital would ever hire. As much as left-wingers decry profit motive.... profit motive keeps patients alive and healing, because dead people don't pay bills.
Socialist hospitals have no such worry, since the government pays the bills. A dead patient isn't a negative at all to the finances.
So without a profit motive, socialist clinics doing Medicare and Medicaid patients, have no problem hiring unwanted Nurses and Doctors.
In, a healthier economy with a better labor market, even that would not be enough. THey would HAVE to offer better wages even to keep the dregs.
Have you ever been in a position, where as the employEE, you have the leverage and your employER, needed you more than you needed the job?
I have. It was glorious.
I want to share that joy, with as many of my fellow workers as possible.
No, that's not true. Unwanted employees can easily be held onto at below market wages. I know this because I talk to these people, and they openly tell me why they were for below market wages.
Also you need to understand a fundamental difference between typical employment, and health care employment.
When I mean that some of the nurses or doctors are bad... I mean that they are employees that private care systems simply don't want at any price.
The example I always point to, is this story from over 10 years ago, about a doctor at a VA hospital. So this guy went in for routine minor surgery. The kind of surgery that less than half a percent die in. He died, and his wife was in the hospital, when a nurse approached her, and whispered 'get a lawyer' and walked away. So she hired a lawyer and investigator, and found out this doctor had been fired from 3 private hospitals for killing patients.
But of course, the VA desperate for doctors because government run anything is crap, and pays nothing, had no problem hiring a doctor that can't get employment anywhere else, because he was terrible. Remember a VA hospital doesn't lose any money when a Vet dies. It just means the wait list is one shorter now.
That's what I'm talking about. Some of the people who work at Medicare and Medicaid clinics, are people who are so bad at their jobs, they are simply not wanted in the market. So yes, if this clinic is a Medicare Medicaid clinic, then it is likely desperate for people willing to work for less, and people who simply suck too bad to work in private clinics, will have no problem working there, even for below market wages.
Have you ever been in a position, where as the employEE, you have the leverage and your employER, needed you more than you needed the job?
Sure. I've been in that position most of my life. Out of my last... 10 employers I'd guess, at least 8 of them did everything they could to prevent me from leaving the company.
But you need to grasp that this is because I'm a good employee. I'd say at least 1/3 to almost half, are terrible employees, and them leaving is a positive more than a negative. None of these people are likely to be paid more, and most likely less, anywhere else.
In fact I've heard that first hand. "I deserve a raise! I'm worth more than this!" Ok... go get a job that pays more. (long pause) "Well no one else will pay me as much as I'm earning here"..... dur... then you are not worth more than this, are you? In fact maybe this company is over paying you, if any other employer would pay you less.
I've not seen gross incompetence like you suggest.
What I have seen is job openings that get massive numbers of applicants so there is no pressure on the employer to work to hold onto a good employee.
Or to raise wages.
You've explained your opinion about why that is.
Stating it again, and more confidently, is good technique.
I though, am beyond being convinced by such tricks.
Perhaps, if you do it again and with more passion? Perhaps, that will sway me.
Please explain how that happens in detail. Keep in mind we have really low unemployment and even labor shortages. Share an economist that agrees with you.Look at what the employment rate has been. We have labor shortages. Blaming trade makes no sense. If they are stealing our jobs why do we have so many?I'm amazed you believe it is trade even though all the evidence says it's not, but then you are so resistant to something with so much evidence. Just amazing. Again, the wage market is clearly not healthy. Really low unemployment and labor shortages should increase wages.What service jobs aren't tied to some industry?There are few industries I can think of that don't have some form of this. The use of noncompete agreements is all over.Good question. I would say you want to first start by following the money. The wealth is here, we have plenty of jobs, where is the money going? I think we know the answer to that. So then why are markets so broken? Here is a good article I mostly agree with you should read.
Wage stagnation: economists look to new explanations | Harvard Magazine
Economists look to new explanations for wage stagnation.
MARKET CONCENTRATION, the economist’s term for how much an industry is dominated by one or a few firms, touches ever more aspects of American life. From the obvious (the Amazons and Walmarts of the retail economy) to the obscure (the beer industry, which may appear diverse, is dominated by two firms), market concentration has increased in three-quarters of U.S. industries during the twenty-first century. This has had wide-ranging effects not only on consumers, but also, economists increasingly believe, on labor. “Fewer firms in a given industry makes it easier for them to have more bargaining power [over employees], and harder for workers to switch to another employer,” says Jason Furman, professor of the practice of economic policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, and former chair of the Obama administration’s Council of Economic Advisers.
Today’s labor markets increasingly look like a monopsony: a market in which there is only one buyer—the inverse of a monopoly, in which there is only one seller. The more an industry is dominated by a small number of corporations, the more those companies can control the cost of labor. Traditionally, Furman says, economists have relied on a supply-and-demand story about the labor market: “There’s a supply of workers and demand for workers, and the wage is what clears the market, just like the price of wheat is what clears the market for wheat. That explains a lot about wages, but it probably doesn’t explain everything…[T]hat research program went as far as it could.”
In the last three years, Furman explains, economists have looked to monopsony and other factors beyond market competition to explain the stagnation of Americans’ wages during the last few decades. Fewer companies in a given industry make it easier for those companies to coordinate, either indirectly or through overt collusion, to keep wages low. Think of a town with two big-box retail stores: each store knows what the other pays its cashiers, and neither wants to raise wages. Firms can also use noncompete agreements, which ban employees from taking jobs at rival companies, to prevent workers from finding new jobs elsewhere. About 24.5 percent of the American work force has signed a noncompete, according to one Brookings Institution analysis, and this number is not much lower (about 21 percent) for workers earning less than the median salary.
But wages stagnation is across the board, not limited to "given industries".
Why are you limiting the discussion to industries? Nothing prevents labor from moving from industry to service jobs.
Financial, Medical, Food, Bars, off the top of my head.From dialysis to hospitals, U.S. health care is full of monopolies
Markets are consolidating out in the open and behind the scenes.
If the dialysis centers are being especially cheap, just about everyone in it, could transfer to another modality, sometimes without any training.
I'm just not seeing this factor as the answer that you think it is.
Supply and demand are the wide ranging issues, that can effect EVERYTHING at once.
Trade and immigration means that American labor is competing almost directly with Third World labor.
I'm amazed you DON'T believe it is trade.
Not stealing jobs, suppressing wages.
Guy has a job he needs filled. He offers it, at the same wage it has been for the last ten years. Some desperate out of work guy from the mill that just closed down, comes by and takes it. So the employer does not have to raise wages to fill the job and get the work done.
**** the economists. The economists said that Free Trade would lead to improved competitiveness and then increased exports and jobs. They either lied, or were just incompetent. Either way, they don't get to play Authority any more.
