Question for those pushing a "living wage"

[kaz]

I still haven't heard why there's something wrong with taxing insurance companies and HC providers and using the proceeds to pay for healthcare for workers whose jobs don't pay enough to include that benefit. Or even taxing passive income of the Wal-Mart heirs.

Businesses don't pay taxes. All they do is raise their prices to cover any expenses. In effect, all you'd be doing is contributing to a rate increase.

He's not satisfied with what Obama has done to the cost of insurance, he wants to drive it even higher! But only to make it more affordable...

 

[hortysir]

In another thread someone claimed that people have a right to be paid enough to support a family. I'd like to hear input from others on this.



Does a person with a paper route have the right to be paid enough to support a family?

Should a grocery bagger get paid enough to support a family?

What is the lowest level of job where you think the employers should be required to pay their employees enough to support a family? And how large of a family should this job be able to support?

If my brother quit his computer job and went to work as a Wal-Mart stocker, should he be able to expect Wal-Mart to pay him enough to support his six children?

Can I add the question, "How large of a family should be supported?"

 

[ClosedCaption]

You make an interesting point

But as a follow up. If your employee doesn't earn enough to support himself, should the taxpayer make up the difference?

Should an employer have the taxpayers support his employees just so that he can profit off of substandard wages?

As I said in another thread. Republicans make the mud, jump in it then complain about it.

Advocating for low wages is making the mud, those low wage workers are then subsidized by the tax payers sometimes at the behest of the ones paying the low wages.

Then, as if by surprise, they're angry at the foreseeable outcome. It's like supporting 2+2 and getting angry at 4 while saying 4 shouldnt exist

 

[g5000]

In another thread someone claimed that people have a right to be paid enough to support a family. I'd like to hear input from others on this.



Does a person with a paper route have the right to be paid enough to support a family?

Should a grocery bagger get paid enough to support a family?

What is the lowest level of job where you think the employers should be required to pay their employees enough to support a family? And how large of a family should this job be able to support?

If my brother quit his computer job and went to work as a Wal-Mart stocker, should he be able to expect Wal-Mart to pay him enough to support his six children?

Too many people try to place the blame for a lack of a "living wage" on one side of the equation or the other. The worker vs. the corporation.

It isn't that simple.

If you are 35 years old and working as a stockboy, you probably made some really bad choices somewhere in your life, and your low wage is the result of those choices. Quitting jobs at the drop of a hat because no one put you in charge of the company on the first day. Choosing a party lifestyle over paying the rent on time. These habits eventually catch up to you.

But corporations aren't entirely innocent, either. Personnel are the largest expense of any company, and stockholders believe that layoffs when a company is struggling are good for the stock price.

Corporations use other methods which maximize profits while harming the workers as well.

Hiring on people as temps so the company doesn't have to provide them the full benefits packages that converted employees receive, and then stretching out the conversion period over years instead of months. Or, even worse, just churning through temps instead of hiring any as permanent employees.

Many companies also have one or two week long shutdowns, forcing employees to use their paid time off when the company decides they should use it instead of when the employees would like to take time off with their families.

Then there are wage freezes and delays in promotions. Companies will also leave positions open when someone leaves the company, forcing the remaining employees to take up more and more responsibilities, and so forth.

Any solution to the "living wage" problem, or the "income gap" problem is going to have to deal with all of these problems on both sides of the equation.

We need to educate our work force for the high tech, high paying jobs of tomorrow. In the high tech fields you don't see a lot of unionization. That is because an educated worker is a rare commodity these days. The workers in the high tech industries have some bargaining leverage.

The low skilled jobs are the unionized jobs because an unskilled worker has zero leverage against a big corporation.

The better trainined our people, the more equalization we will see in incomes. But this also means we need to stop rewarding or supporting people who lack motivation.

 

[bendog]

I still haven't heard why there's something wrong with taxing insurance companies and HC providers and using the proceeds to pay for healthcare for workers whose jobs don't pay enough to include that benefit. Or even taxing passive income of the Wal-Mart heirs.

Businesses don't pay taxes. All they do is raise their prices to cover any expenses. In effect, all you'd be doing is contributing to a rate increase.

He's not satisfied with what Obama has done to the cost of insurance, he wants to drive it even higher! But only to make it more affordable...

No it's simply a dodge. Insurers make more money with more customers, as do providers. So, there is "more revenue." Costs initially rose slower, but now they appear to be increasing. The question is why and how do you stop it. If the answer is the newly insured cost more per avg patient, then again the question is why.

But again I question the premise of the OP. Yes, there are malingers. But, there are many working poor working two or more jobs. Why do we want these people to not have healthcare or an affordable wage if we can do it without cutting our won throats.

 

[kaz]

Businesses don't pay taxes. All they do is raise their prices to cover any expenses. In effect, all you'd be doing is contributing to a rate increase.

He's not satisfied with what Obama has done to the cost of insurance, he wants to drive it even higher! But only to make it more affordable...

No it's simply a dodge. Insurers make more money with more customers, as do providers. So, there is "more revenue." Costs initially rose slower, but now they appear to be increasing. The question is why and how do you stop it. If the answer is the newly insured cost more per avg patient, then again the question is why.

But again I question the premise of the OP. Yes, there are malingers. But, there are many working poor working two or more jobs. Why do we want these people to not have healthcare or an affordable wage if we can do it without cutting our won throats.

So you tax the healthcare industry, they raise rates to cover it, how is that not cutting our own throats? My insurance in the end went up 30% this year, and I'm happy about that given that initially it was supposed to triple.

How do you not grasp that costs don't go away just because you stick someone else with them? They come right back.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You make an interesting point

But as a follow up. If your employee doesn't earn enough to support himself, should the taxpayer make up the difference?

Should an employer have the taxpayers support his employees just so that he can profit off of substandard wages?

If he doesn't make enough at one job to pay his bills then he should work 2 jobs or 3 jobs etc.

We have made it easier and easier to suck on the government tit and should address that as well.

I want to know where it is written that one 40 hour a week job is all that one needs to support himself. No one I know that ever accomplished anything only ever worked 40 hours a week.

 

[bendog]

He's not satisfied with what Obama has done to the cost of insurance, he wants to drive it even higher! But only to make it more affordable...

No it's simply a dodge. Insurers make more money with more customers, as do providers. So, there is "more revenue." Costs initially rose slower, but now they appear to be increasing. The question is why and how do you stop it. If the answer is the newly insured cost more per avg patient, then again the question is why.

But again I question the premise of the OP. Yes, there are malingers. But, there are many working poor working two or more jobs. Why do we want these people to not have healthcare or an affordable wage if we can do it without cutting our won throats.

So you tax the healthcare industry, they raise rates to cover it, how is that not cutting our own throats? My insurance in the end went up 30% this year, and I'm happy about that given that initially it was supposed to triple.

How do you not grasp that costs don't go away just because you stick someone else with them? They come right back.

the question is WHY did your rates go up 30%. The overall HC industry got some 8 million or so new customers. Was the increased revenue it received from those customers not sufficient for them to pay the tax without raising prices? We don't know ... yet. Was the cost of the subsidies not fully covered by the taxes on the industry, and thereby driving up defictis? We don't know.

The pt is, it seems to me the OP and your posts evidence a belief that we should do nothing to help those who try hard but don't do as well .... even if the cost to ourselves is minimal.

It may be the cost is actually much more than minimal. If that's the case, then I'd say we need to look to how to make the cost less .... or at least apply the cost to .... say the shareholders of McDonalds or Wal-Mart. But if the opposition is simply "I got mine Jack," that's a different story.

 

[rightwinger]

You make an interesting point

But as a follow up. If your employee doesn't earn enough to support himself, should the taxpayer make up the difference?

Should an employer have the taxpayers support his employees just so that he can profit off of substandard wages?

If he doesn't make enough at one job to pay his bills then he should work 2 jobs or 3 jobs etc.

We have made it easier and easier to suck on the government tit and should address that as well.

I want to know where it is written that one 40 hour a week job is all that one needs to support himself. No one I know that ever accomplished anything only ever worked 40 hours a week.

That assumes that for the tens of millions of working Americans who need some sort of government assistance there are 2 or 3 additional jobs available. In fact, the opposite is true. There are three applicants for every job that is open

 

[g5000]

Along with the 8 million who enrolled through the federal web site, there were more who signed up on state web sites. Then on top of that, there were several states who accepted the Medicaid expansion.

Therefore, it is an educated guess to say that most of the people who have recently become insured for the first time ever, or for the first time in years, at this point are people who were uninsured either due to illness or from being economically disadvantaged.

The drowning will always be the first to climb onto a lifeboat, after all.

That means these people will be a drag on insurance companies, not a boon. Therefore, the cost of these new people has to be spread around.

As younger healthier people begin to sign up, they will begin to offset this initial wave of the sick and the desperate.

But we will never see the per capita health care spending curve go down under ObamaCare. Ever.

 

[Impenitent]

In another thread someone claimed that people have a right to be paid enough to support a family. I'd like to hear input from others on this.



Does a person with a paper route have the right to be paid enough to support a family?

Should a grocery bagger get paid enough to support a family?

What is the lowest level of job where you think the employers should be required to pay their employees enough to support a family? And how large of a family should this job be able to support?

If my brother quit his computer job and went to work as a Wal-Mart stocker, should he be able to expect Wal-Mart to pay him enough to support his six children?

While the other thread implies that Republicans are against higher wages because business will suffer, you seem to be against them because poor people are undeserving of higher wages.

Are both true at the same time?

Or is the former given as the excuse, while the real reason is the latter?

I asked concrete questions with specific examples. You chose not to answer them and instead opted to make general and negative comments about my motives. Thus, I choose not to answer your questions. If you would like to try again with a post which is more related to my OP and not so personal, perhaps I will reconsider.

My intention was to make several posts, covering each area of contention, rather than one massive, and less readable one.

But first, I wanted to see where you were coming from...if you would actually say...or refuse to.

But why is it wrong for me to counter with a post questioning your motives? I had just read this response in the previous thread,

"Why should they even have to work at all? They should be allowed to have as big a family as they want and sit home and paint and get subsidized healthcare and housing and food."

I was using that quote for a baseline for discussion, rather than your op. Perhaps I shouldn't? Are we starting all over? You don't mean that any more?
You now have great personal respect for the downtrodden?

 

[kaz]

The pt is, it seems to me the OP and your posts evidence a belief that we should do nothing to help those who try hard but don't do as well ....

That's because you're a moron who thinks that we are helping people if and only if the government does it. You're FOS.

You take zero personal responsibility, you say they should get their insurance paid for free, then you send government out to do it with money confiscated by force. You pat yourself on the back for having done zero and condemn the people who actually paid for it.

Just a day at the office for a liberal...

 

[ClosedCaption]

Cons always ask for examples of something that wont change their minds. I think they prefer wasting everyones time and when someone refuses to waste time they claim victory from being ignorant of the answers.

 

[kaz]

Along with the 8 million who enrolled through the federal web site, there were more who signed up on state web sites. Then on top of that, there were several states who accepted the Medicaid expansion.

Therefore, it is an educated guess to say that most of the people who have recently become insured for the first time ever, or for the first time in years, at this point are people who were uninsured either due to illness or from being economically disadvantaged.

The drowning will always be the first to climb onto a lifeboat, after all.

That means these people will be a drag on insurance companies, not a boon. Therefore, the cost of these new people has to be spread around.

As younger healthier people begin to sign up, they will begin to offset this initial wave of the sick and the desperate.

But we will never see the per capita health care spending curve go down under ObamaCare. Ever.

Why would they do that when they are paying for as you accurately described overpriced insurance? Overpriced meaning they are paying for other people's medical care, not their own.

For the reasons you stated, this year is projecting to be a bigger hit on rates then last year from everything I'm seeing in the financial press.

 

[g5000]

Along with the 8 million who enrolled through the federal web site, there were more who signed up on state web sites. Then on top of that, there were several states who accepted the Medicaid expansion.

Therefore, it is an educated guess to say that most of the people who have recently become insured for the first time ever, or for the first time in years, at this point are people who were uninsured either due to illness or from being economically disadvantaged.

The drowning will always be the first to climb onto a lifeboat, after all.

That means these people will be a drag on insurance companies, not a boon. Therefore, the cost of these new people has to be spread around.

As younger healthier people begin to sign up, they will begin to offset this initial wave of the sick and the desperate.

But we will never see the per capita health care spending curve go down under ObamaCare. Ever.

Why would they do that when they are paying for as you accurately described overpriced insurance? Overpriced meaning they are paying for other people's medical care, not their own.

For the reasons you stated, this year is projecting to be a bigger hit on rates then last year from everything I'm seeing in the financial press.

The young and healthy signed up for RomneyCare under the same conditions. Because they were mandated to.

Most people will obey the law, even if the fine for not obeying it is cheaper.

 

[kaz]

Cons always ask for examples of something that wont change their minds. I think they prefer wasting everyones time and when someone refuses to waste time they claim victory from being ignorant of the answers.

That's because you believe that a twisted, self serving liberal slant is an "example" of something we asked for? I'm a libertarian, not a con, but for this it's the same thing. You give evidence which would convince only the most partisan of Democrats (e.g., you), then ask why we aren't convinced.

 

[kaz]

Along with the 8 million who enrolled through the federal web site, there were more who signed up on state web sites. Then on top of that, there were several states who accepted the Medicaid expansion.

Therefore, it is an educated guess to say that most of the people who have recently become insured for the first time ever, or for the first time in years, at this point are people who were uninsured either due to illness or from being economically disadvantaged.

The drowning will always be the first to climb onto a lifeboat, after all.

That means these people will be a drag on insurance companies, not a boon. Therefore, the cost of these new people has to be spread around.

As younger healthier people begin to sign up, they will begin to offset this initial wave of the sick and the desperate.

But we will never see the per capita health care spending curve go down under ObamaCare. Ever.

Why would they do that when they are paying for as you accurately described overpriced insurance? Overpriced meaning they are paying for other people's medical care, not their own.

For the reasons you stated, this year is projecting to be a bigger hit on rates then last year from everything I'm seeing in the financial press.

The young and healthy signed up for RomneyCare under the same conditions. Because they were mandated to.

Most people will obey the law, even if the fine for not obeying it is cheaper.

As a business owner, that's not what I'm seeing. The uninsured in my office looked at the mandate, then when they priced policies realized the fine was way cheaper. I am not aware of one person who had insurance and dropped it or who didn't have insurance and signed up.

I realize that's one data point, but if you look at the fact of how much insurance rates soared to, it explains the national numbers that the young aren't signing up. I'm not sure what you're seeing that suddenly they are going to start doing it.

 

[g5000]

The pt is, it seems to me the OP and your posts evidence a belief that we should do nothing to help those who try hard but don't do as well ....

That's because you're a moron who thinks that we are helping people if and only if the government does it. You're FOS.

You take zero personal responsibility, you say they should get their insurance paid for free, then you send government out to do it with money confiscated by force. You pat yourself on the back for having done zero and condemn the people who actually paid for it.

Just a day at the office for a liberal...

This is the angle supporters of ObamaCare took that gets me the angriest. The unbelievable idea that those who are being forced to pay for the slackers in our society are the "freeloaders".

One third of the involuntarily uninsured are high school dropouts. These people will have to be carried by the rest of us. THEY are the freeloaders. THEY are being supported after making bad decisions.

And yet those who love ObamaCare call those who are being forced to buy insurance the freeloaders. Those who must be forced to buy insurance at rates higher than they deserve so they will offset the real freeloaders.

Simply incredible.

 

[bendog]

The pt is, it seems to me the OP and your posts evidence a belief that we should do nothing to help those who try hard but don't do as well ....

That's because you're a moron who thinks that we are helping people if and only if the government does it. You're FOS.

You take zero personal responsibility, you say they should get their insurance paid for free, then you send government out to do it with money confiscated by force. You pat yourself on the back for having done zero and condemn the people who actually paid for it.

Just a day at the office for a liberal...

oh **** you if all you have is name calling.

You can't even try to address the point that some people work hard but through no fault of their own do not earn enough for a "liveable wage" or health care beyond out of pocket trip to the doc for a sore throat or something. The pt is that if society can redress that fact without costing the rest of us workers a hell of a lot, we can either try or do nothing. You choose nothing. And you can't even say why.

 

[bendog]

The pt is, it seems to me the OP and your posts evidence a belief that we should do nothing to help those who try hard but don't do as well ....

That's because you're a moron who thinks that we are helping people if and only if the government does it. You're FOS.

You take zero personal responsibility, you say they should get their insurance paid for free, then you send government out to do it with money confiscated by force. You pat yourself on the back for having done zero and condemn the people who actually paid for it.

Just a day at the office for a liberal...

This is the angle supporters of ObamaCare took that gets me the angriest. The unbelievable idea that those who are being forced to pay for the slackers in our society are the "freeloaders".

One third of the involuntarily uninsured are high school dropouts. These people will have to be carried by the rest of us. THEY are the freeloaders. THEY are being supported after making bad decisions.

And yet those who love ObamaCare call those who are being forced to buy insurance the freeloaders. Those who must be forced to buy insurance at rates higher than they deserve so they will offset the real freeloaders.

Simply incredible.

Well I don't love obamacare, but the fact is I was already carrying these folks because the present their sick kids to ERs when they are REALLY sick kids, don't pay and the bill get's forwardered to my insurer/employer, and ultimately passed to me or product cost hikes.

I object to the notion of "doing nothing."

And ps, not everyone who drops out of school had the ability to get through it or evidences malingering.