Ready for the $9 Big Mac, for real?

[One Brow]

If minimum wage goes to $15/hr across the board, it would not surprise me to see a push to raise the poverty level soon after.

The federal poverty level already rises almost every year, it's linked to inflation via the Consumer Price index.

https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/faq.cfm#calculated

 

[Stoked]

The federal poverty level already rises almost every year, it's linked to inflation via the Consumer Price index.

https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/faq.cfm#calculated

You are right it does. But the way this trickles down into low income/resource based benefits results in increases of very small amounts. For example SSI went from a max of 710.00 in 2013 to 721.00 in 2014. So $11.00 more a month.

When you are making an extra (going off the $15 minimum wage thrown around in this thread) you are losing benefits and money over all. The poverty level would need to be dramatically increased to make it worth it in most cases.

But then all you have is society continuing to provide for people making $15 an hour instead of $7.25 or whatever it currently is.

 

[One Brow]

When you are making an extra (going off the $15 minimum wage thrown around in this thread) you are losing benefits and money over all. The poverty level would need to be dramatically increased to make it worth it in most cases.

Again, I would need to see a more convincing presentation of the numbers than so far offered.

 

[JAZZGASM]

So, we agree that the ACA put forth the money that is being used to fund the expansions, and yet you maintain the position that this does not mean the ACA expanded Medicaid, because providing the means and impetus for a phenomenon apparently has nothing to do with being a cause of the phenomenon, according to you. You have a peculiar view of political causation.

Again, I conceded stated that my short post was misleading. My point was the ACA tried to expand Medicaid ‎everywhere but was denied. It left it up to states to decide, but states still have to fund much of the ‎cost on their own. So the ACA authorized federal funding to states that chose to expand (which they ‎already could have before the ACA).

1) I made no such statement.
2) The level of benefits is likely to be variant from state to state. In particular, the federal poverty levels in Hawaii and Alaska are much higher than in the lower 48; but there are also differences between what the states themselves offer. You continued use of a blanket statement on benefits is misguided.
3) Even today, most people who make minimum wage don't work the full 40 hours. Continuing to base your argument on a 40-hour work-week is a distortion.
4) You keep talking about $15/hour, but many proposals would have far less of an increase.
5) For reference, the actual poverty guidelines are linked.

https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/14poverty.cfm

You previously stated "Raising the minimum wage would reduce welfare dependance [sic], but would not alter ‎CHIP/Medicaid enrollment after the expansions of the ACA". My example shows it would, but you refuse to admit you were dead wrong I have ‎referenced all of my responses based on the push for an increase $15/hr minimum, which I have referenced multiple times in this thread. I have already ‎stated tying minimum wage to inflation would not cause much inflation or other issues. Again, it doesn't matter if the levels vary ‎from state to state. You stated that the benefits would not alter medicaid enrollment due to ‎expansion. I also clearly responded that I was referencing what would happen with a $15/hr minimum ‎wage. You responded "Regardless, the fall-off in benefits is less than the increase in wages at any ‎particular stage. If they lose all benefits, it is because they are more than making up for it in ‎wages". My example shows you are clearly wrong. Thank you for linking the poverty guidelines, I ‎already used them in my example. ‎

I should just stop there, because you only respond to things you believe are flaws, rather than addressing your own errors, but I will continue to respond to your comments.

I agree that in states that refused the expansion, enrollment would drop after an increase in minimum wage for employees lucky enough to work at least 32 hours for as much as $15/hour. That would be a minority of minimum-wage employees.

Most minimum wage families have two earners anyway and other deductions. I was using a basic example based on a full-‎time employee. Again, the fact is a full time employee at 15/hr would lose benefits contrary to your ‎erroneous statements.‎ Evidence shows that (1) a higher minimum wage causes employers to cut back on the number of workers they hire and employees working hours; (2) the beneficiaries of higher minimum wages are unlikely to be poor because most minimum-wage earners are not poor (generally dependents); and (3) few individuals living in poverty work at minimum-wage jobs or any job."
Federal labor statistics suggest that minimum-wage earners are more often part-time youth, including college students and working parents, who may be laboring for additional money but not for their survival. There is little evidence that heads of households work at minimum-wage jobs. https://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2013.pdf

B

y this you mean, of course, that most would then qualify for federally subsidized insurance, which is often available for a few dollars a month to people whose income is in the low 30s.

Based on my example, the family would not qualify for subsidized insurance. Since your company ‎works in this area, I would expect you to know that. They only way the family would get a subsidy is if ‎the employer did not offer minimum value coverage that does not exceed 9.5% of income (or the ‎employer may face a penalty). The majority of my clients are moving to premiums based on income to ‎avoid penalties when the ACA transition rules go away in 2016.‎

Just to be clear: you are claiming at a family of 3, on an income of $15,080/year, will receive $7,800/year in Section 8 benefits? I do not believe you. I think you are using "can cover" as a weasel word here.

Locally, if you are making that $15,080/year, you'll be expected to contribute 30% to your rent, or $377/mo, that is, $3904/year. If you have a 2-bedroom apartment, at the very most you will receive $317 from section 8. As you increase, the amount of rent you pay increases by 30% of your income.

https://eslha.org/category.php?id=NDQ=

Your link, like Utah limits payments to a MAXIMUM of 30% based on housing at the voucher limits. Utah has additional payments for lower income families, and I actually called to get my numbers, as Utah doesn't list them on the site. (I have a section 8 renter and he confirmed (and the voucher I receive each month) he pays less than 30% and he makes more than minimum wage. Utah also pays utility payments (as does Illinois). You also aren't taking into account deductions to income and family size Even if they paid the maximum 30% (with the applicable family size deductions) they would be paying rent of $353 with a housing voucher up to $700, plus the utility voucher of up to $200. That is still $6564 a year, which would still equate to $18,491.44 using the maximum numbers in your benefit. Your statement "‎"Regardless, the fall-off in benefits is less than the increase in wages at any particular stage" is still clearly wrong when running the numbers in your favor.



https://www.haslc.com/wp-content/uploads/11-2013utilitysfd.pdf.

Food stamps are also income-based. Given your misrepresentation in 1), I'd like to see some evidence that 3 people at $15,080/year would get that $497/mo before i take this number seriously.

https://jobs.utah.gov/customereducation/apply/incomecharts.html

A family of 3 would get $497 a month in Utah.

You can usually get insurance for less on the federal/state exchanges, from what I've heard.

Are you ****ing kidding me? That is your response? I pulled actual quotes which mirror the exchange. ‎Again, this family would not qualify for a subsidy because they were offered minimum essential ‎coverage by their employer. You are trying to attack all my statements without addressing all of your inaccurate ones. Give me a break. ‎

Given that your first number was off by $4K/year, I did not bother to do any checking on the rest of you numbers. One or two of them may even be accurate. Even then, this is under the assumption of full-time work, which, again, does not describe most minimum-wage jobs.

Again, your comments just backfire on you. You state "I agree that in states that refused the ‎expansion, enrollment would drop after an increase in minimum wage for employees lucky enough to ‎work at least 32 hours for as much as $15/hour. That would be a minority of minimum-wage ‎employees." What do you think will happen if minimum wage goes up? Jobs and hours available will ‎go down. I agree most minimum wage workers are not FT. They are mostly teens. As stated in the link above, only 2.7% of workers over age 25 are paid minimum or less. The majority are teens of middle class families. If you raise minimum wage to $15 (the same hypothetical I have stated throughout the thread) will cause jobs to go down.

It is obvious that if, as an employer, I am willing to pay 8/hr for certain work, if the cost of that work goes to $15 that job goes away. It is also obvious that if you change input costs it will have a direct correlation on output cost based on the percentage increase of the input cost to total input cost.

It is clear that Government interference tends to make things worse (straight from Freakonomics). There is a reason education costs so much (Gov't guaranteed student loans that can't be discharged). Prior to these changes, education was a lot cheaper with very steady inflation. https://inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Education/Education_inflation_chart.htm

If you look at the cost of education, it was very steady up into the late 70's, which is the exact time the Government made student loans non-dischargeable in bankruptcy. Again, as I stated earlier, it is similar with health care. When you have governmental interference, which changes risk and costs as has been done in our country, costs go up. What the ACA did was take a cost-sharing structure known as insurance, and blew it up. You no longer have to have pre-exisiting conditions, and if you don't have insurance you pay a small penalty ($95 this year). If I get sick, I can still go sign up for insurance and they can't deny me, meaning everyone else under the policy, which was cost/risk sharing with other policy holders, must now pay the costs for more free-riders. It is a tax.

These convoluted laws are great for my career, I keep really busy due to the complicated tax code and the structure of the ACA, but I'd be willing to switch careers if we went to a more fair system.

Finally, I did not reference many other federal programs the family could lose out on: TEFAP, Pell Grants, etc. If one of the adults wanted to go to college, they will no longer qualify for Pell in my example, as they will be over the 150% of the poverty limit, sacrificing up to an additional $5,730 per year (not sure what the minimum wager would get, but I would imagine close to the max, I am not doing the EFC calculation, I've already spent too much time on this thread...

You clearly aren't willing to see logic when it is thrown in your face. You continually make false statements, and instead of directly addressing them (which I have done), you continue to attack my comments when it is OBVIOUS much of what you have stated is flawed. I can see there is no point in continuing to argue through this with you. My friends in St. Louis warned me about people like you from across the river. I can now see why. I have enough morons in my life that I don't need to deal with you. You can continue to spout your nonsensical drivel. I will not be viewing this thread again, you obviously aren't worth the effort. May God have mercy on your soul.

 

[Stoked]

That escalated quickly.

 

[8]

How much 4 Chipotle burrito bowl?

TIA


£¥£

That place sucks

 

[franklin]

Waiting for technological silver bullets and price hikes might be too long of a wait, and it might cost us an entire habitat.


Frank, ideally, would you want to change things sooner rather than later? If so, why not devise a way to change things up?




As a Canadian, I am familiar with how destructive our lifestyles are, particularly in relation to other nations.


However, acknowledging that there is a problem with my habits is the first step to ridding myself of the said problem.

I'm nowhere near as drastic on environmental issues as you come across so it's hard to find any common ground. If you think things are on the edge of catastrophe then yeah we need to do something immediately.

I'm a pragmatic and prefer doing things that can get done and achieve advancements. I could tell you all my environmental preferences for US policy but none of them are achievable. Sooner is great, but it's not happening here anytime soon. Europe leads the world in diplomatic accomplishments once again; the US of A is stuck in the 1800's.

 

[LogGrad98]

I would say we are stuck in the 1900s, the century of excess.

 

[UGLI baby]

That place sucks

Know how I know you don't know what you're tom bout?


£¥£

 

[8]

Know how I know you don't know what you're tom bout?


£¥£

Cuz you're bunkmate at the asylum disagrees?

 

[Stifle Tower]

Won't affect me. I've already stopped buying regular menu items. My wages have decreased with the recession while prices have gone up. If it ain't on the dollar menu on the rare occasion I now buy fast food, I won't buy it.

My lifestyle is much different now than it was 5 years ago. Forget even shopping at decent department stores like Macy's. Everything has gone up from clothes to food to utilities; my family is now value shopping.

 

[LogGrad98]

Won't affect me. I've already stopped buying regular menu items. My wages have decreased with the recession while prices have gone up. If it ain't on the dollar menu on the rare occasion I now buy fast food, I won't buy it.

My lifestyle is much different now than it was 5 years ago. Forget even shopping at decent department stores like Macy's. Everything has gone up from clothes to food to utilities; my family is now value shopping.

I know what you mean. I got laid off in 2009 when my oldest was 16. I ended up blowing through our savings and retirement to keep our heads above water and then took a job 2 rungs down the corporate ladder at about a 30% paycut which had lasted through my oldest 3 kids entire teen years. Hopefully with my upcoming move I can get most of that back but wow has it been a tough 5 years.

 

[One Brow]

I should just stop there, because you only respond to things you believe are flaws, rather than addressing your own errors, but I will continue to respond to your comments.

Historically, I'm one of the few posters that, when shown to be in error, acknowledges the error. I don't expect you to be any more accurate with that than you are with any other information that you offer.

My example shows you are clearly wrong.

Made up examples of unrealistic situations don't show anything other than your fantasies.

Most minimum wage families have two earners anyway and other deductions.

Agreed. One reason you can't use a single example to prove anything.

Again, the fact is a full time employee at 15/hr would lose benefits contrary to your ‎erroneous statements.‎

Again, you have not presented anywhere near enough sufficient evidence to prove this.

Evidence shows that (1) a higher minimum wage causes employers to cut back on the number of workers they hire and employees working hours; (2) the beneficiaries of higher minimum wages are unlikely to be poor because most minimum-wage earners are not poor (generally dependents); and (3) few individuals living in poverty work at minimum-wage jobs or any job."

If this were all true, it would undercut your position. If the people on Medicaid were not the minimum wage earners, than raising minimum wages would not affect their Medicaid status.

Federal labor statistics suggest that minimum-wage earners are more often part-time youth, including college students and working parents, who may be laboring for additional money but not for their survival. There is little evidence that heads of households work at minimum-wage jobs. https://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2013.pdf

In 2011, 21.3 percent of minimum wage earners were the head of the household; 10.3 percent were a spouse; 13.7 percent were single; and 18.4 percent were other relatives, including grandchildren, parents, siblings, and foster children. Table 1 does reveal the average family incomes of these groups were smaller than the national average. However, table 2 demonstrates that those incomes were all well above the 2011 HHS federal poverty thresholds for families of up to six people.

https://americanactionforum.org/research/primer-minimum-wage-and-combating-poverty

Based on my example, the family would not qualify for subsidized insurance. Since your company ‎works in this area, I would expect you to know that. They only way the family would get a subsidy is if ‎the employer did not offer minimum value coverage that does not exceed 9.5% of income (or the ‎employer may face a penalty). The majority of my clients are moving to premiums based on income to ‎avoid penalties when the ACA transition rules go away in 2016.‎

Noted.

... he pays less than 30% and he makes more than minimum wage.

You realize that, if he pays less than 30%, than for any increase in wages, less than 30% of that increase goes to additional rent? Again, that undercuts your argument.

...with a housing voucher up to $700, plus the utility voucher of up to ...

Once again, without evidence, you are claiming that the family of 5 making just over $15K gets the maximum allowance.

A family of 3 would get $497 a month in Utah.

Once again, without evidence, you are assuming that the family of 3 making just over $15K gets the maximum allowance.

Are you ****ing kidding me? That is your response? I pulled actual quotes which mirror the exchange. ‎

If you say so. Again, based on how you toss numbers around, I have no reason to trust it.

Again, this family would not qualify for a subsidy because they were offered minimum essential ‎coverage by their employer. You are trying to attack all my statements without addressing all of your inaccurate ones. Give me a break. ‎

You seem to be correct on this point.

Again, your comments just backfire on you. You state "I agree that in states that refused the ‎expansion, enrollment would drop after an increase in minimum wage for employees lucky enough to ‎work at least 32 hours for as much as $15/hour. That would be a minority of minimum-wage ‎employees." What do you think will happen if minimum wage goes up? Jobs and hours available will ‎go down. I agree most minimum wage workers are not FT. They are mostly teens. As stated in the link above, only 2.7% of workers over age 25 are paid minimum or less. The majority are teens of middle class families.

Only 24.2% are teens (16-19) at all. 49.6% are over the age of 25. Also, every person working at a state/local minimum wage that is higher than the federal minimum wage would be represented in this table as not working at or below the federal minimum wage, even though they are in minimum wage jobs. The numbers in the BLS link you offered only look at the federal minimum wage level, and thus drastically under-report actual minimum wage numbers.

If you don't mind, could you explain what you thought the backfire was? I didn't see one.

If you raise minimum wage to $15 (the same hypothetical I have stated throughout the thread) will cause jobs to go down.

Historically, a raise even to $10.10 would be of nearly unprecedented size, I see no reason (nor evidence) to dispute one way or another for a raise to $15.

It is obvious that if, as an employer, I am willing to pay 8/hr for certain work, if the cost of that work goes to $15 that job goes away.

Really? What to you do instead to get that work done? If the job was needed, it still needs to be done. If the job was not needed, why were you paying the extra money in the first place?

I can appreciate the point you are trying to make, but this is a drastic, unrealistic simplification. What you would really do is find ways to improve production, which may or may not result in the loss of the job.

It is clear that Government interference tends to make things worse (straight from Freakonomics).

Well, who'd want to dispute one of your holy texts?

There is a reason education costs so much (Gov't guaranteed student loans that can't be discharged). Prior to these changes, education was a lot cheaper with very steady inflation.

Yet, students are not flocking to the cheaper alternatives in order to borrow less money. Again, this is a gross oversimplification. It does not take into account, for example, reduced government support for state education.

Again, as I stated earlier, it is similar with health care.

The dramatic increase in health care costs preceded the ACA by decades. It's much too soon to say that the ACA contributes to or slows the increase.

You no longer have to have pre-exisiting conditions, and if you don't have insurance you pay a small penalty ($95 this year). If I get sick, I can still go sign up for insurance and they can't deny me, meaning everyone else under the policy, which was cost/risk sharing with other policy holders, must now pay the costs for more free-riders. It is a tax.

What you describe was already the case for most emp0loyer-provided insurance before the ACA, in certain conditions with a small wait period before coverage. It's only private insurance where preexisting conditions were an issue, a small part of the insured pool.

These convoluted laws are great for my career, I keep really busy due to the complicated tax code and the structure of the ACA, but I'd be willing to switch careers if we went to a more fair system.

What sort of system would you support?

You clearly aren't willing to see logic when it is thrown in your face.

Logic derives the truth of conclusions from the truth of the assumptions, it is just as GIGO as any computer program. It doesn't matter how much logic you "throw" when your assumptions are unreliable or just plain false.

I will not be viewing this thread again, you obviously aren't worth the effort. May God have mercy on your soul.

Works for me. I guess when you completely fail to make a credible argument, the Christian response is to throw out various insults, flounce, and then condescend. Thanks for showing some True Christian behavior.

 

[One Brow]

That escalated quickly.

Apparently I don't follow the gospel of Freakonomics. People always get sensitive about religion.

 

[One Brow]

I know what you mean. I got laid off in 2009 when my oldest was 16. I ended up blowing through our savings and retirement to keep our heads above water and then took a job 2 rungs down the corporate ladder at about a 30% paycut which had lasted through my oldest 3 kids entire teen years. Hopefully with my upcoming move I can get most of that back but wow has it been a tough 5 years.

Same for me, going back to 2008.

 

[JAZZGASM]

Historically, I'm one of the few posters that, when shown to be in error, acknowledges the error. I don't expect you to be any more accurate with that than you are with any other information that you offer.

Made up examples of unrealistic situations don't show anything other than your fantasies.

My curiosity got the better of me, and the continued absurdity of your posts make me want to respond. Yes, the Utah site does not show the definitive amount that one has to pay, but as I stated in my last post, it is clear if they rent a $700 apartment and pay 30% (max numbers paid by participant) with the utility allotment they would still lose thousands of dollars. A 2 bd in your area would be $693 from the link you provided, plus utilities which were also referenced in your link. So again, even with the minimum amounts, the family would still lose thousands. And again, this does not take into account potential Pell Grant losses in the thousands and other state programs. As you stated previously,

"Regardless, the fall-off in benefits is less than the increase in wages at any particular stage.[/B

. Well add in a college education for one or both adults, and the numbers glaringly show losses. Again, I am not running the numbers to calculate the Pell EFC, but from experience I know they would be losing out on thousands. Lets see if you actually can acknowledge you work wrong as you say you historically do, or if you have to somehow justify it again. Again, even with the numbers you are throwing out (adding in utilities), housing plus other losses are clearly more than wages, even if you adjust down for food stamps etc. Also, I didn't take into account eligibility to good to a food pantry(did not look up either) Throw in Pell grants, and it is a huge difference.

Agreed. One reason you can't use a single example to prove anything.

Yes, that is true that an increase would affect families differently (some more, some less). I was simply showing an example to refute your statement that:

"Regardless, the fall-off in benefits is less than the increase in wages at any particular stage. If they lose all benefits, it's because they are more than making up for it in wages."

Obviously someone that is a FT breadwinner (and they do exist) along with a similar scenario with two pt minimum wage parents would lose money based on amounts clearly documented on Utah's welfare resource sites (food stamps, medicaid, etc). You are clearly wrong, as there are many situations where hypothetical families would lose more benefits than they would gain, but you wish to continually argue that you were not wrong. If you say so.

Again, you have not presented anywhere near enough sufficient evidence to prove this.

Clearly based on the 30% standard for housing, which is the HUD/Section 8 standard amount (many states have additional subsidies above this) and the other links I provided, I did provide sufficient evidence. What do you want, a sworn affidavit from officials? When Utah did not clearly show the amounts I called to verify. That is where I got my original numbers, but I don't have any written documentation. Regardless, as stated above and my last post, again, with the 30%, which you verified is the standard in your area too, once you add utilities, the $15/hr minimum wage would cause the family in my hypo. to lose more than they gain, especially if they desire to go to college, where as I stated previously, they would lose the ability to get Pell Grant status as well... There are other programs I did not include (as stated in my prior post) because it I was not able to get any definitive numbers.

You realize that, if he pays less than 30%, than for any increase in wages, less than 30% of that increase goes to additional rent? Again, that undercuts your argument.

Flawed logic, and a lack of understanding. This is under the assumption that the family would continue to qualify for subsidized housing, which they would no longer qualify for @ 15/hr FT. So the family paying less than 30% in rent would now be paying 100 percent in rent and utilities, as Section 8 clearly shows (in your link too) that they would no longer qualify.

Really? What to you do instead to get that work done? If the job was needed, it still needs to be done. If the job was not needed, why were you paying the extra money in the first place?

I can appreciate the point you are trying to make, but this is a drastic, unrealistic simplification. What you would really do is find ways to improve production, which may or may not result in the loss of the job.

You clearly have never owned a business. When you have a job that costs more than the value of the work done, you change your business model, and if you decide to continue with the product/service, you find other lower cost options to get it done, such as moving the jobs overseas, or using computers. And if you more than double the input cost of entry labor, and much higher cost for wholesale product from suppliers who have also had a spike in labor costs, many businesses are going to make major adjustments. This will involve a mixture of increased cost to consumers, and job losses in the U.S. There is a reason the majority of the products we buy are made elsewhere, and of course there are many jobs the U.S. is losing out on because of this.

As I stated in one my my early posts in this thread, you will find that low wage jobs are more scarce in areas with higher minimum wage. In Europe, McDonalds have gone to touchscreen order stations, and even in the states many have become more automated. Since Seattle passed the $15/hr minimum wage, a few of my large clients are looking to move operations out of Seattle into nearby cities. If you raise costs, jobs leave. On a tangent, it will be the same thing if the U.S. taxes away foreign tax credits as Obama has stated he will do (although he helped Delphi with a bailout even though they take advantage of the current law). It will simply cause employers to leave the U.S. so they don't have to deal with U.S. source income.

Congressional Budget Office: https://www.washingtontimes.com/new...ke-would-kill-half-million-jobs-cbo/?page=all

Yet, students are not flocking to the cheaper alternatives in order to borrow less money. Again, this is a gross oversimplification. It does not take into account, for example, reduced government support for state education.

Stating students don't flock to cheaper alternatives is the gross oversimplification. What students aren't doing this? The cheap, high quality schools are often hard to get into. The problem is, schools are harder and harder to get into, and costs are rising everywhere. I think many students don't have a choice. I was lucky to get to go to a cheap college, but my post-grad education was expensive. And the "cheaper alternatives" are few and far between. This is not an oversimplification. It is clearly documented that higher education costs have dramatically risen due to government guaranteed, non-dischargeable student loans. The housing bubble was caused the same way. People try to blame the banks, but they were only doing what the government authorized.

On a bit of a tangent: Now student loans are going to be forgiven after 20 years on Obamas new pay as you go program. Technically, I could go to 7-10years of the most expensive schools, get student loans, and then never work (or make under 150% of the poverty level) and have it all forgiven after 20 years. Or if I work in public service or a non-profit (such as IHC), my loans will be forgiven after 10 years. So If I work as a resident at IHC for three years, and a Dr. for 7 (never paying more than the standard payment, and likely only a few thousand a year as a resident) my $400k in student loans will be forgiven at year 10, even though I am making bank to afford the payments myself. (My cousin is a surgeon and is "taking advantage" of this program). Once his residency is over he will make about $500k a year. His loan payment will never be over the standard payment amount, which would likely be a couple thousand a month. Conservatively, I estimate he will likely have about $270,000 discharged (including interest) Not to mention, under the current pay as you go and income based repayment plans, student loan payments are only 10%(pay as you go or 15% (IBR) of your income that is 150% over the poverty level (capped at the standard payment amount). So as long as I make under approximately 43k (family of 3), I never pay a penny. So the government has caused tuition to go up sky high by interfering with loans, and they are fixing it by strapping taxpayers with the bill. Great fix. What else can we have the government take control of?

The dramatic increase in health care costs preceded the ACA by decades. It's much too soon to say that the ACA contributes to or slows the increase.

Costs of insurance jumped significantly this last year, I'm sure many of you saw your premiums jump. That is because the young invincibles, that were supposed to keep costs down, have not signed up (and why would they with no pre-existing conditions. When you take a risk/cost-sharing structure and allow any one to participate without contributing, especially people with high cost (the people without insurance who get cancer, etc. then sign up) costs are going to rise a lot. The ACA also has built in additional costs for many people (such as the 40% Cadillac tax that will be charged to many plans beginning in 2018). It also contributed to lost wages and jobs. (I have numerous clients who are cutting back hours or only hiring below 30 hours to avoid the penalty). In addition to the higher costs due to expensive new participants, the taxes under the PPACA to both insurance and employers are estimated to increase insurance costs for families to increase by $5,000 over the next 10 years (according to the Joint Commitee on Taxation). A huge jump compared to prior increases.

What you describe was already the case for most emp0loyer-provided insurance before the ACA, in certain conditions with a small wait period before coverage. It's only private insurance where preexisting conditions were an issue, a small part of the insured pool.

Again, you are pulling statements out of your ******* unless 12 months is a "small waiting period". Prior to the ACA, if you did not have proof of continuous credible coverage, most states allowed insurance to exclude conditions that, during the 24-month period preceding the effective date of coverage, had manifested in such a way that the person had sought medical treatment. Essentially, if you don't have insurance, or lost coverage for a period of time (generally 62 days), and went to see a Dr. and they found a condition (be it cancer, aids, ADHD, etc.) all insurers could exclude you from treatment for 12 months after you enroll. This applied to private and employer provided insurance as well (self-funded or traditional insurance provided policies). For many sick people, this amounted to a death sentence.

What sort of system would you support?

Honestly, a less complicated system, such as a flat tax system with no deductions for individual or corporations. I'd also get ride of the estate tax. Lets just have one tax, let it be transparent and fair (or a semi flat tax with a minimum income threshold). It would stop the savvy rich from underpaying due to many tax breaks, and will cause all (or almost all citizens in a semi-flat system) to pay something to our country. Either way, it will never happen. Think of all the tax attorneys, CPAs, tax preparers, third-party administrators, retirement plan professionals (retirement plans are qualified plans that exist because the tax code gives deductions) that would be out of work. Not to mention all of the support staff at these companies. It would cause huge job losses. There are too many strong lobby groups to give up the complicated system we have. Any changes to the code will make things more complicated if anything, such as the ACA, or the PPA back in 2006. The tax code will get longer, and more complex.

 

[Deleted member 848]

I'm nowhere near as drastic on environmental issues as you come across so it's hard to find any common ground.

You'd be surprised. I have a lot to lose with embracing more environmentally-responsible government policies. Particularly fossil fuels. Alberta is home to the Oil sands, and our economy would completely cripple without it. My University would be garbage, my father would get laid off (who essentially supports most of my family financially), and my older brother would probably need to alter his career trajectory to some extent.

With that said, I still think that things need to change. I believe you think so too. At the end of the day, I just want things to get moving. It feels like (especially here where I live) that things are gridlocked, and attitudes aren't really penetrating the masses to the extent where actions are made. We watch a feel-bad documentary, feel that we should do something about it, but then we quickly forget everything for the sake of simplicity and laziness.

If you think things are on the edge of catastrophe then yeah we need to do something immediately.

I'm a pragmatic and prefer doing things that can get done and achieve advancements. I could tell you all my environmental preferences for US policy but none of them are achievable. Sooner is great, but it's not happening here anytime soon. Europe leads the world in diplomatic accomplishments once again; the US of A is stuck in the 1800's.

I really really deplore the word never. How many times has the word 'never' been used for former social policies that North America has since passed? Instead of concluding that something will never happen, its much more 'pragmatic' (and I consider myself one as well) to try and devise a solution, even if it is at a compromise. Something is better than nothing.


FWIW you're on the money about the Europe thing. The US is often slammed unfairly, and I love Canada much more than I love Europe, but you have to give them credit where it's due. Their sense of environmental diplomacy far exceeds ours.

 

[franklin]

You'd be surprised. I have a lot to lose with embracing more environmentally-responsible government policies. Particularly fossil fuels. Alberta is home to the Oil sands, and our economy would completely cripple without it. My University would be garbage, my father would get laid off (who essentially supports most of my family financially), and my older brother would probably need to alter his career trajectory to some extent.

With that said, I still think that things need to change. I believe you think so too. At the end of the day, I just want things to get moving. It feels like (especially here where I live) that things are gridlocked, and attitudes aren't really penetrating the masses to the extent where actions are made. We watch a feel-bad documentary, feel that we should do something about it, but then we quickly forget everything for the sake of simplicity and laziness.



I really really deplore the word never. How many times has the word 'never' been used for former social policies that North America has since passed? Instead of concluding that something will never happen, its much more 'pragmatic' (and I consider myself one as well) to try and devise a solution, even if it is at a compromise. Something is better than nothing.


FWIW you're on the money about the Europe thing. The US is often slammed unfairly, and I love Canada much more than I love Europe, but you have to give them credit where it's due. Their sense of environmental diplomacy far exceeds ours.

I have to backtrack a bit for explanation. I'm also not certain where you want change, but assume you're referring to global warming based on your previous posting.

The issue with US politics and getting things done is we're so vast compared to Europe, and much larger population-wise than most individual countries. Canada seems to have similar issues with vast land creating pockets of competing interests, which is why you have much more "state's rights" as we'd call them at the provincial level than the US does. At least that's the way it comes across to me. Europe has much tighter grouped populations which makes it easier to be a bit altruistic about environmental this and that as far as getting things done is concerned. They've also destroyed much of their habitat, so giving them credit for some stuff is a slap in the face to what Teddy Roosevelt accomplished as an environmental visionary. They also have limited access to oil and gas resources; so does the US compared to what we can consume but we can afford it neener neener.

So there's a little background into why I used cannot happen, or whatever. I.e. you try proposing a $5 or $6/gallon gasoline minimum base price here and you'd get laughed off the stage by everyone. So, we look at other areas to achieve progress.

I read the environmental Code of Federal Regulation for a living, and I can guarantee you'd be surprised at just how much we are actually doing at home. We cannot control the rainforest or your oil sands, and plenty have issues with our fracking as I'm sure you know, but the environmental regulations on the books are often as onerous as the republican base makes them sound.

 

[One Brow]

Flawed logic, and a lack of understanding. This is under the assumption that the family would continue to qualify for subsidized housing, which they would no longer qualify for @ 15/hr FT. So the family paying less than 30% in rent would now be paying 100 percent in rent and utilities, as Section 8 clearly shows (in your link too) that they would no longer qualify.

No, it's a fairly straight-forward result of a basic theorem. If g'(x) <= f'(x) on [a,b], and g(a) <= f(a), then f (b) - g(b) >= f(a) - g (a). Here, g(x) is "the amount of benefits received" and f(x) is "the amount of income". Simply put, if for every dollar in income increased you lose less than a dollar in benefits between income level a and income level b, then at the end of the process you you can only have increased the difference between the two.

All of the benefits you have discussed (except for Pell grants, I don't think they are factored in) are scaled based on your income level as a percentage of one or another poverty threshold, and the combined effects of these programs are designed so that you never lose more than a dollar in benefits when you gain a dollar income. Some of them are available even at 150% of the relevant threshold, to a small degree.

So, when you make an argument based in assuming that a benefit is *fully* available at income a, and *not at all* at income b, you need to show that this benefit is *fully* available at income a, and *not at all* at income b. Tossing up a website that lists some maximum value is not convincing, but it does not say that maximum value is available at a, and no value is available at b.

You clearly have never owned a business. When you have a job that costs more than the value of the work done, you change your business model, and if you decide to continue with the product/service, you find other lower cost options to get it done, such as moving the jobs overseas, or using computers. And if you more than double the input cost of entry labor, and much higher cost for wholesale product from suppliers who have also had a spike in labor costs, many businesses are going to make major adjustments.

You seem to be under the impression that this is counter to what I said, but I don't see why.

As I stated in one my my early posts in this thread, you will find that low wage jobs are more scarce in areas with higher minimum wage.

As a percentage of the employed population? The high-school educated population? You didn't link any numbers, and your statement is almost meaningless without them.

In Europe, McDonalds have gone to touchscreen order stations, and even in the states many have become more automated.

Do you have evidence that automation is happening faster in states with a higher minimum wage, at the very least? If not, what's your evidence this connects to minimum wage at all?

Stating students don't flock to cheaper alternatives is the gross oversimplification. What students aren't doing this? The cheap, high quality schools are often hard to get into.

They always have been. What has not happened is the high prices driving student in large numbers to community college, cheaper schools with less quality, etc.

It is clearly documented that higher education costs have dramatically risen due to government guaranteed, non-dischargeable student loans.

It is clearly documented that they have risen dramatically. One possible cause is guaranteed student loans, but there are also many other factors.

The housing bubble was caused the same way. People try to blame the banks, but they were only doing what the government authorized.

There were booms and busts long before the government got involved in housing.

So the government has caused tuition to go up sky high by interfering with loans, and they are fixing it by strapping taxpayers with the bill. Great fix. What else can we have the government take control of?

Your solution?

Costs of insurance jumped significantly this last year, I'm sure many of you saw your premiums jump.

They jumped significantly in 1992, and 1993, and 1994, and ... . What's the differential in percentage increase by year for the same coverage, and has that differential changed?

Your screed read like a cut-and-paste from a standard libertarian site. It's short on facts, and long on proclaimed causes sans evidence for a causal link.

In addition to the higher costs due to expensive new participants, the taxes under the PPACA to both insurance and employers are estimated to increase insurance costs for families to increase by $5,000 over the next 10 years (according to the Joint Commitee on Taxation). A huge jump compared to prior increases.

What the percentage increase from 2004 to 2014, compared to the percentage increase you are claiming for 20174 to 2024?

Again, you are pulling statements out of your ******* unless 12 months is a "small waiting period".

I never took a job that had a 12-month waiting period on the employer insurance. ^ was the longest, usually it was 3.

Prior to the ACA, ... For many sick people, this amounted to a death sentence.

You think this was a good thing?

Honestly, a less complicated system, such as a flat tax system with no deductions for individual or corporations. I'd also get ride of the estate tax.

Besides this being a rich man's dream, it has nothing to do with the question of what sort of system you would support for health care.

 

[JAZZGASM]

No, it's a fairly straight-forward result of a basic theorem. If g'(x) <= f'(x) on [a,b], and g(a) <= f(a), then f (b) - g(b) >= f(a) - g (a). Here, g(x) is "the amount of benefits received" and f(x) is "the amount of income". Simply put, if for every dollar in income increased you lose less than a dollar in benefits between income level a and income level b, then at the end of the process you you can only have increased the difference between the two.

Your responses are becoming more and more absurd.

Even with your numbers (30% paid by family and adding in utilities) they still lose more benefits than wages gained, even with a big drop in food stamps. Again, as I mentioned earlier I didn't take into account many other programs such as the Family Employment Program and others mentioned. The FEP provides another $498/mo ($5976/yr) for a household size of 3. This is not a max amount. And not taking into account pell grants. Even taking away the food stamps (could not find the amount online), the numbers are not in your favor.
https://jobs.utah.gov/customereducation/services/financialhelp/family/qualify.html

Again: Housing at $6564 (your % with utilities you left out). $5964 in food stamps. $5964 in FEP. $2964 in medical premiums, again with a high deductible, which I did not take into account when running my calculations. Smaller tax credit. Paying FICA.

6550+5964+5964+2964+2000+999.44=$24,441.44 Even taking away the food stamps, which you keep arguing over, would still put us above the gain in wages. And this is without Pell either. Not to mention, which you overlook, that the costs of health care in cases of sickness is now the families burden when Medicare would have covered all or almost all of any bills. And the 9.5% max premiums are for the sole employee only. I just used the $2964 to be more than reasonable, so you argue over my food stamp numbers. As long as the employer is offered 9.5% he will not qualify for a subsidy. The ACA does not even require a plan to offer coverage to a spouse. So rather than $2964, which is not reasonable, the plans would probably be closer to what I pulled on ehealthinsurance, as the employer is offering coverage so no subsidy will be available ($369.46/mo and $12,600 deductible) or $17,033.88 a year if they one of them get sick and they have to max out the deductible. On the lowest deductible plans, they are paying $941/mo with a $3,000 family premium or $14,292. Plus a $25 co pay. Again, as the employer offered minimum value coverage, no subsidy will be available on the exchange for employee. And I have my family on private insurance, and ehealthinsurance was CHEAPER than what was found on the exchange. For my wife and child, we pay $450 a month with a $2000 deductible. Add me in and the numbers were the same I provided. Luckily my employer covers my entire premium. Even with a subsidy of up to $3700, assuming the two family members qualify the numbers are glaring when you look at total premiums and deductibles for similar coverage to medicare. https://www.ehealthinsurance.com/ehi/rc/individual-family-health-insurance!submit#subsidyEstimator. In addition to the 2964 paid by employee, the family would still pay 300/mo for no deductuble coverage or a small amount for covrrage with a $12,000 deductible. Adding the employee coverage to the spouse and child would be over $6k, even with a subsidy for spouse and child.
So if you want to continue to argue over numbers, show me a non-subsidized or subsidized insurance quote with comparable coverage to Medicaid for two mid 30s adults and 2 year old, that, compiled with the documented housing, fica, child care (FEP), tax losses, FICA. And go ahead and find out food stamp numbers for yourself. No matter how you view it, the overall losses to this family are staggering. Replace the single employee coverage insurance ($2964) with coverage for the whole family, and at a minimum the total will be over $6k for the entire family with a subsidy without paying any of their deducible (no Dr. visits) or they will have a 12k deductible.. And that would be with $0 in food stamps and no Pell grants either.[/B] the numbers are tellinh. Or, they make $7.25, and are better off with free (nominal cost) care. I had a poor distant family member get a majory surgery as a child and they paid nothing under medicare, and her parents made far over the minimum).

Give it up already.

All of the benefits you have discussed (except for Pell grants, I don't think they are factored in) are scaled based on your income level as a percentage of one or another poverty threshold, and the combined effects of these programs are designed so that you never lose more than a dollar in benefits when you gain a dollar income. Some of them are available even at 150% of the relevant threshold, to a small degree.

This may be true to an intent, but an increase to $15/hr would cause most benefits to be off the table as I already mentioned. You are continuing to rehash failed arguments. WIC was the only benefit still available at $31k for a family of 3. As you agreed, 30% is the maximum number for the housing in my scenario. Your area is the same. The FPL is the amount, not the max. Medicaid would be gone. You continue to argue over the food stamp amount. I pulled it out of my example, and the numbers are still staggering. Even if the food stamp #s were high, the insurance costs were vastly low. Give it up.

So, when you make an argument based in assuming that a benefit is *fully* available at income a, and *not at all* at income b, you need to show that this benefit is *fully* available at income a, and *not at all* at income b. Tossing up a website that lists some maximum value is not convincing, but it does not say that maximum value is available at a, and no value is available at b.

As I have stated repeatedly, I called to confirm the availability. Either way, the websites list 30% as the max section 8 payment. FPL (link above) is the amount, not max amount. Food stamps were the ONLY item I listed that had a max amount I used in my calculations. Again, they are completely off the table (guarantee they will get a few hundred but the number is removed) and you are STILL WRONG. Even using the standard 30% for housing and cutting food stamps down to nil, there would still be a loss (and Pell grants were not factored in either, which justs bolsters my calculation). Your statement regarding loss in benefits being less than dollars gained was wrong. And I didn't cherry pick, I picked one example and went with it and I think my original numbers were reasonable. Find me any insurance plan for 3 which provides even close to the coverage of medicaid for near the difference in wages when the employer offers minimum value coverage (no subsidy). You won't find it. It does not exist. And most employers with FT employees are going to offer it to avoid the penalty. So it is a valid scenario.

Do you have evidence that automation is happening faster in states with a higher minimum wage, at the very least? If not, what's your evidence this connects to minimum wage at all?

It is happening in Europe has shown it to be true which I referenced early on. It won't happen here until the cost of labor rises above the cost of automation. Similar to the oil shale boom in our country. It wasn't viable when the input cost of fracking was more expensive than you could buy oil on the market. Once the cost of automating is lower than the cost of cheap labor, it will happen. And it isn't just automation, it will be movement of jobs overseas. I have already had two clients move major divisions to Mexico. And I was told it was due to rising labor costs, mostly caused by the ACA. (The ACA specifically excludes employees that receive foreign source income). In Seattle, where the $15/hr minimum won't go into effect for a couple years, there are already some instant ramifications to the tiered increases:
https://www.aei-ideas.org/2014/06/w...sses-are-adding-a-8-25-living-wage-surcharge/
https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/blog/post/seatac-everyone-pays-15-minimum-wage
https://www.nwasianweekly.com/2014/05/blog-seatac-tells-us-15-minimum-wage/

An 8.5 surcharge on parking. (wait, I thought you said there was no such correlation to minimum wage and consumer cost). 401(k), vacation and sick time, all being taken away, and free food too. Overtime is also getting cut back, and employees are now having to pay for parking. Even tips will decline. Yet you said that would not happen, because 401ks are necessary for retention. Apparently not from this example. Over the next couple years we will learn a lot from the ramifications in Seattle.

It is quite simple, when costs exceed output, jobs will decline. Yes, employers will try to be more efficient, but at double the labor input, the number of minimum wage jobs will have a large decline.

They always have been. What has not happened is the high prices driving student in large numbers to community college, cheaper schools with less quality, etc.

From 1985-2012, the overall consumer price index has riose 115% while the college education inflation rate rose nearly 500%. In 2010, the amount of total student loan debt in America reached $830 Billion. This was the first year that another form of personal debt exceeded that of credit card debt, which was $825 Billion that year. In 2013, that number has now grown to over $1 Trillion and will continue to do so at an estimated rate of 10 percent annually. The average debt amount per household with student loans is over $25,000. There used to be very low caps on student loans, ($2500 in the early 80s per year). Now you can get hundred of thousands in fed/fed plus loans. Before you would have to get private loans that were not guaranteed by the Government. So lenders would only give loans to those they know could pay back. But just like the Gov't caused the housing bubble by thinking everyone should own a home (and again, guarantees to lenders), it is causing problems. It is obvious on its face, but you still want to argue. I don't get it.

Yes, students will always want to get the best education they can, and will go to the best programs. Community college enrollment has decreased because the government has insured the loans to the lenders, at very high amounts. So now loans are available to students that lenders would have never lent to before, and in much higher amounts. If you honestly are arguing that government interference in the student loan industry has not caused a huge increase in tuition costs. Give. It. Up.

It is clearly documented that they have risen dramatically. One possible cause is guaranteed student loans, but there are also many other factors.

There were booms and busts long before the government got involved in housing.

Again, there is a logical correlation between the community reinvestment act, and affordability goals of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the subprime-driven housing bubble and subsequent crash. Yes, there were market factors too, but the Gov't had a large role. The minority argues against this, and you are free to follow them, but I respectfully disagree.

hey jumped significantly in 1992, and 1993, and 1994, and ... . What's the differential in percentage increase by year for the same coverage, and has that differential changed?

What the percentage increase from 2004 to 2014, compared to the percentage increase you are claiming for 20174 to 2024?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottg...8-insurance-brokers-analysts-blame-obamacare/
According to Morgan Stanley, the recent numbers are by far the largest ever. It is glaring, and the ACA is to blame. You want other numbers, look them up.

I never took a job that had a 12-month waiting period on the employer insurance. ^ was the longest, usually it was 3.

Your clear lack of understanding is glaring. Employer waiting periods and preexisting condition exclusions are completely different things. There is still a (up to 90 day, which due to rules I won't get into, causes most employers to offer insurance after 60 days) waiting period under the ACA You either had continuous coverage from parents plan/prior coverage/COBRA/etc., or you didn't realize that if you had gotten cancer during a large gap your new coverage would exclude it, even if you were "covered" under the new plan. If you switched employers your new insurerer (prior to the ACA) would have requested a certificate of credible coverage, which likely was sent by your old insurance. Again, scary if this is your industry. I imagine based on your responses you probably work in software/IT. Otherwise, I am scared for your client base.

You think this was a good thing?

I did not say that. But, if you could buy homeowners insurance after your house burned down, why pay the monthly premium? The fact is, the ACA is flawed. Essentially we are taking ideas from red and blue and shoving it together. If you take half an elephant and half a donkey, and sew them together, you get a ****ed up animal called the ACA. A single payer system would work better than the ACA as currently drafted. Not to mention the excess hidden costs to employers paying their attorneys, administrators, and processors to run the data and produce the forms. It is an ineffective mess.

Besides this being a rich man's dream, it has nothing to do with the question of what sort of system you would support for health care.

As I stated before, the tax code and ACA are both convulted. The whole system is a mess. A flat tax would be a simplification to the entire system. No more 401(k). (no more pretax deductions), etc.
I think our prior system needed reform, but we went the wrong direction. A system like we had before worked better than the ACA is now. It was more efficient, and costs were cheaper. I see it in the real world every day. Single payer systems work in a lot of countries. There would be a negative global effect if the U.S. went to similar system. The U.S. overpays for medical care/drugs which in turn allow additional research and growth in treatment etc., that the rest of the world with single payer systems benefits from.

And the drug companies are already focused on making money (sustained profit over cure). If we go to a single payer system, the growth in medicine will slow dramatically. However, it would save us a bunch of money. Cost or quality I guess.


Let's Recap some of the classics from Unibrow:

You realize that, if he pays less than 30%, than for any increase in wages, less than 30% of that increase goes to additional rent? Again, that undercuts your argument.

Right. Except he would not longer get section 8 benefits, so he'd be paying 100% of the rent.

Raising the minimum wage would reduce welfare dependance, but would not alter CHIP/Medicaid enrollment after the expansions of the ACA.

This is clearly wrong. My example shows a $15/hr minimum wage would take away Medicare (no longer eligible)

I never took a job that had a 12-month waiting period on the employer insurance. ^ was the longest, usually it was 3.

Your clear lack of understanding is glaring. Employer waiting periods and preexisting condition exclusions are completely different things. There is still a (up to 90 day, which due to rules I won't get into, causes most employers to offer insurance after 60 days) waiting period under the ACA You either had continuous coverage from parents plan/prior coverage/COBRA/etc., or you didn't realize that if you had gotten cancer during a large gap your new coverage would exclude it, even if you were "covered" under the new plan. If you switched employers your new insurerer (prior to the ACA) would have requested a certificate of credible coverage, which likely was sent by your old insurance. Again, scary if this is your industry. I imagine based on your responses you probably work in software/IT. Otherwise, I am scared for your client base.

Regardless, the fall-off in benefits is less than the increase in wages at any particular stage. If they lose all benefits, it's because they are more than making up for it in wages.

You could see you were wrong, but had to argue over the amount of food stamps. OK, food stamps removed, and I added in proper insurance and other benefits (actual, not max amounts) to satisfy you.

The numbers fall even more out of your favor, and your responses are becoming more and more absurd.