noxiousdog wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 9:43 am
That's not the way it works either.
Non-snarky reply: There is no spokesperson for "Health Care." No business defends "high margin." Businesses price as high as they can and lower their costs as much as they can.
There may be no spokesperson for health care but there are many lobbies and many lawyers and messages become a sort of bastardized Das Man that we face. Collectively the messaging if from health care. So you say businesses. And if you want to make it about phrasing then I would say a collection of health care business and their messaging will defend their high profit margin pricing and blame continued escalation of health care prices on paying low wage health care workers a living wage.
I don't mind hashing it out. You don't like "Health Care" and want specificity. Sure, whatever.
No it doesn't. It does depend on the job though. IT and health care jobs are obviously better service jobs than waiting tables.
Sorry to be clear, I meant the definition of a good job. A job paying $12/hr. to take care of sick people is not my definition of a good job. But again it depends on your definition.
Anyway the BLS numbers predict at the moment that over the next 10 years low paying jobs dominate the forecasts for job growth.
That's not the way it works. If we need 900,000 personal care aides (which is 1/3 of your top number) and they can't be found, then they will no longer be paid 24k per year. This is extremely likely considering the industry is projected to grow 33%. I suspect that the current low number is likely due to the number of part time workers in that industry.
So in the face of data you point at facile macroeconomic theory that hasn't been predictive at all? Weak sauce. Even if pay growth correlated 100% with the job growth they'd be looking at ~30K. The only good thing about the story is that more people are getting out of poverty. But they are living on a knife's edge between tipping into poverty at all times. As has been discussed extensively median wages have barely budged for decades. Decades. Job growth and labor shortages haven't changed that story at all.
That being said, I wish more folks were paying attention to Andrew Yang on this issue. Non-skilled labor will nearly disappear in our lifetime.
No it won't. In the next 50 years non-skilled labor is going to vanish? Laughably preposterous. Over the next ten years, the data shows that non-skilled labor is exploding. The future always sounds bright until we get there. Look around now and compare it to what people thought when we were landing on the moon. Pretty stark difference and the reality is it is really, really bad for a lot of people. Call me crazy but this is a big part that explains why the wheels are coming off the bus all over the world. The libertarian fantasy world is not going to save us. The future right now looks a whole lot like Elysium and not the United Federation of Planets.
malchior wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:04 am
Look around now and compare it to what people thought when we were landing on the moon. Pretty stark difference and the reality is it is really, really bad for a lot of people.
"Really, really bad" by today's standards is way, way better than the standards in the 60s.
malchior wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:04 am
Look around now and compare it to what people thought when we were landing on the moon. Pretty stark difference and the reality is it is really, really bad for a lot of people.
"Really, really bad" by today's standards is way, way better than the standards in the 60s.
Agreed. Crime is way better. Healthcare is mostly accessible but not where the people in the 60s envisioned. Poverty is better. All around incrementally better probably but we have the resources to do far more. Our society is essentially building a new model where we lock people into 'classes'. The classes are better off than say 50 years ago but it still is a stifling societal model that is breaking down in front of our eyes.
malchior wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:04 am
Look around now and compare it to what people thought when we were landing on the moon. Pretty stark difference and the reality is it is really, really bad for a lot of people.
"Really, really bad" by today's standards is way, way better than the standards in the 60s.
Agreed. Crime is way better. Healthcare is mostly accessible but not where the people in the 60s envisioned. Poverty is better. All around incrementally better probably but we have the resources to do far more. Our society is essentially building a new model where we lock people into 'classes'. The classes are better off than say 50 years ago but it still is a stifling societal model that is breaking down in front of our eyes.
Perhaps. I certainly don't mind keeping a focus on it and continuing to work toward improving it. But saying we suck because we don't have a utopia yet isn't helping. Recognizing our successes and seeking to build upon them and translating those learnings to new areas of need seems to be more motivating for most people, in my experience.
malchior wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:04 am
Look around now and compare it to what people thought when we were landing on the moon. Pretty stark difference and the reality is it is really, really bad for a lot of people.
"Really, really bad" by today's standards is way, way better than the standards in the 60s.
Agreed. Crime is way better. Healthcare is mostly accessible but not where the people in the 60s envisioned. Poverty is better. All around incrementally better probably but we have the resources to do far more. Our society is essentially building a new model where we lock people into 'classes'. The classes are better off than say 50 years ago but it still is a stifling societal model that is breaking down in front of our eyes.
Crime, safety, health care, housing, transportation, education. It's all better.
That's not what were talking about though, and in your rant you completely missed my point. It's not that there's magically going to be skilled jobs for everybody, it's that there are going to be fewer and fewer non-skilled jobs period. Hence my reference to Andrew Yang. So we as a society have to address the points you are bringing up but not in a look to the past fashion.
Black Lives Matter
"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
noxiousdog wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 9:43 am
That's not the way it works either.
Non-snarky reply: There is no spokesperson for "Health Care." No business defends "high margin." Businesses price as high as they can and lower their costs as much as they can.
There may be no spokesperson for health care but there are many lobbies and many lawyers and messages become a sort of bastardized Das Man that we face. Collectively the messaging if from health care. So you say businesses. And if you want to make it about phrasing then I would say a collection of health care business and their messaging will defend their high profit margin pricing and blame continued escalation of health care prices on paying low wage health care workers a living wage.
I don't mind hashing it out. You don't like "Health Care" and want specificity. Sure, whatever.
Can you find me any examples of any such thing?
The high margin businesses in health care are pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and specialists. Pharmaceuticals cite the high risk and long development pipelines. Medical Devices have little to no competition and certainly aren't being built or designed by low wage health care workers. Similar situation with specialists. You could argue there's a 20% premium on all medical services due to insurance, but I would argue that insurance is an extremely cutthroat and competitive business and that if they could do it at less than a 20% premium, they would.
Black Lives Matter
"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
noxiousdog wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 9:43 am
That's not the way it works either.
Non-snarky reply: There is no spokesperson for "Health Care." No business defends "high margin." Businesses price as high as they can and lower their costs as much as they can.
There may be no spokesperson for health care but there are many lobbies and many lawyers and messages become a sort of bastardized Das Man that we face. Collectively the messaging if from health care. So you say businesses. And if you want to make it about phrasing then I would say a collection of health care business and their messaging will defend their high profit margin pricing and blame continued escalation of health care prices on paying low wage health care workers a living wage.
I don't mind hashing it out. You don't like "Health Care" and want specificity. Sure, whatever.
Can you find me any examples of any such thing?
The high margin businesses in health care are pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and specialists. Pharmaceuticals cite the high risk and long development pipelines. Medical Devices have little to no competition and certainly aren't being built or designed by low wage health care workers. Similar situation with specialists. You could argue there's a 20% premium on all medical services due to insurance, but I would argue that insurance is an extremely cutthroat and competitive business and that if they could do it at less than a 20% premium, they would.
Brand name teaching hospitals are also high margin, as well. I think basically every metropolitan area has at least one brand name hospital with affiliated hospital / doctor networks, where it is essentially impossible to sell an insurance plan without including that hospital / network. Hence those hospital networks get to essentially choose their prices and margins.
But it's a very have and have not situation, as those hospital networks sit alongside other hospital and hospital networks that aren't essential and which are scraping by.
malchior wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:04 am
Look around now and compare it to what people thought when we were landing on the moon. Pretty stark difference and the reality is it is really, really bad for a lot of people.
"Really, really bad" by today's standards is way, way better than the standards in the 60s.
Agreed. Crime is way better. Healthcare is mostly accessible but not where the people in the 60s envisioned. Poverty is better. All around incrementally better probably but we have the resources to do far more. Our society is essentially building a new model where we lock people into 'classes'. The classes are better off than say 50 years ago but it still is a stifling societal model that is breaking down in front of our eyes.
Perhaps. I certainly don't mind keeping a focus on it and continuing to work toward improving it. But saying we suck because we don't have a utopia yet isn't helping. Recognizing our successes and seeking to build upon them and translating those learnings to new areas of need seems to be more motivating for most people, in my experience.
I think the prevailing story is nearly always the opposite. Utopia is right around the bend. We don't need to change anything. Everything is getting better. All the while the people telling that story and making the rules make sure that almost all the fruits of economic progress go to themselves.
malchior wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:04 am
Look around now and compare it to what people thought when we were landing on the moon. Pretty stark difference and the reality is it is really, really bad for a lot of people.
"Really, really bad" by today's standards is way, way better than the standards in the 60s.
Agreed. Crime is way better. Healthcare is mostly accessible but not where the people in the 60s envisioned. Poverty is better. All around incrementally better probably but we have the resources to do far more. Our society is essentially building a new model where we lock people into 'classes'. The classes are better off than say 50 years ago but it still is a stifling societal model that is breaking down in front of our eyes.
Perhaps. I certainly don't mind keeping a focus on it and continuing to work toward improving it. But saying we suck because we don't have a utopia yet isn't helping. Recognizing our successes and seeking to build upon them and translating those learnings to new areas of need seems to be more motivating for most people, in my experience.
I think the prevailing story is nearly always the opposite. Utopia is right around the bend. We don't need to change anything. Everything is getting better. All the while the people telling that story and making the rules make sure that almost all the fruits of economic progress go to themselves.
Who is telling that story? Trump in 2016 ran on "the country is descending into chaos and only I can stop it".
malchior wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:04 am
Look around now and compare it to what people thought when we were landing on the moon. Pretty stark difference and the reality is it is really, really bad for a lot of people.
"Really, really bad" by today's standards is way, way better than the standards in the 60s.
Agreed. Crime is way better. Healthcare is mostly accessible but not where the people in the 60s envisioned. Poverty is better. All around incrementally better probably but we have the resources to do far more. Our society is essentially building a new model where we lock people into 'classes'. The classes are better off than say 50 years ago but it still is a stifling societal model that is breaking down in front of our eyes.
Perhaps. I certainly don't mind keeping a focus on it and continuing to work toward improving it. But saying we suck because we don't have a utopia yet isn't helping. Recognizing our successes and seeking to build upon them and translating those learnings to new areas of need seems to be more motivating for most people, in my experience.
I think the prevailing story is nearly always the opposite. Utopia is right around the bend. We don't need to change anything. Everything is getting better. All the while the people telling that story and making the rules make sure that almost all the fruits of economic progress go to themselves.
Who is telling that story? Trump in 2016 ran on "the country is descending into chaos and only I can stop it".
And what's super popular in YA fiction these days? Dystopian nightmare futures.
noxiousdog wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 9:43 am
That's not the way it works either.
Non-snarky reply: There is no spokesperson for "Health Care." No business defends "high margin." Businesses price as high as they can and lower their costs as much as they can.
There may be no spokesperson for health care but there are many lobbies and many lawyers and messages become a sort of bastardized Das Man that we face. Collectively the messaging if from health care. So you say businesses. And if you want to make it about phrasing then I would say a collection of health care business and their messaging will defend their high profit margin pricing and blame continued escalation of health care prices on paying low wage health care workers a living wage.
I don't mind hashing it out. You don't like "Health Care" and want specificity. Sure, whatever.
Can you find me any examples of any such thing?
The high margin businesses in health care are pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and specialists. Pharmaceuticals cite the high risk and long development pipelines. Medical Devices have little to no competition and certainly aren't being built or designed by low wage health care workers. Similar situation with specialists. You could argue there's a 20% premium on all medical services due to insurance, but I would argue that insurance is an extremely cutthroat and competitive business and that if they could do it at less than a 20% premium, they would.
investopedia is acting as Das Man. They cite JAMA acting as Das Man.
The authors found that service price and intensity, including the rising cost of pharmaceutical drugs, made up more than 50% of the increase. Other factors, which comprised the rest of the cost increase, varied by type of care and health condition.
What are the lessons learned by profitable hospitals and health systems?
To better appreciate the success of profitable health systems, it helps to understand first the failings of the U.S. health system at a national level. It is well-known that healthcare spending is higher in the U.S. than other countries, while health outcomes are not. According to analysis by the Commonwealth Fund, there are several reasons the U.S. is not more cost-effective:
Overuse of diagnostic testing. Use of medical services and social services in the U.S. are similar to other high-income nations, with the exception of imaging services such as MRIs and CT scans.
Higher practitioner salaries. Salaries for U.S. doctors are nearly double the average salary across all high-income countries. Specialists and nurses in the U.S. also earn significantly more.
Higher spending on drugs. The U.S. spending per person on pharmaceuticals ($1,443) is nearly twice the average of $749 elsewhere in the industrialized world.
High administrative costs. In the U.S., 8 percent of healthcare expenditures pay for activities related to planning, regulating, and managing care, compared to an average 3 percent among high-income countries.
Health delivery organizations have stalled these cost drivers at a local level through a combination of strategies. Several best practices are common among the most profitable health systems in the U.S.:
Consolidation of overhead cost centers and streamlined processes to reduce administrative costs, including billing conflicts
Elimination of unnecessary medical costs, such as redundant imaging and laboratory services
Referrals to cost-efficient providers (e.g., for post-acute care), including alternative therapies with the same or better health outcomes than conventional options
Support for process improvement in the form of data, resources, and culture
Negotiations for fair pricing of pharmaceuticals and compensation of practitioners
Participation in population-based managed care programs such as capitated payment, bundled payment, or other risk-based agreements that reward providers for cost-efficiency and quality
Strategic integration with ambulatory facilities, physician practices, and community health partners to reduce unnecessary costs, increase access to primary and specialist care, improve coordination of care, and support better health outcomes
I'm not sure what you're looking for from me. A citation for my prognostication that increasing wages for low income healthcare workers would be blamed as the drive behind increasing healthcare costs? I can't provide that. That everyone wants to justify their own profit margins while our medical costs outpace costs across the globe with no value addition provided for those costs? Do you really need me to research that?
malchior wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:04 am
Look around now and compare it to what people thought when we were landing on the moon. Pretty stark difference and the reality is it is really, really bad for a lot of people.
"Really, really bad" by today's standards is way, way better than the standards in the 60s.
Agreed. Crime is way better. Healthcare is mostly accessible but not where the people in the 60s envisioned. Poverty is better. All around incrementally better probably but we have the resources to do far more. Our society is essentially building a new model where we lock people into 'classes'. The classes are better off than say 50 years ago but it still is a stifling societal model that is breaking down in front of our eyes.
Perhaps. I certainly don't mind keeping a focus on it and continuing to work toward improving it. But saying we suck because we don't have a utopia yet isn't helping. Recognizing our successes and seeking to build upon them and translating those learnings to new areas of need seems to be more motivating for most people, in my experience.
I think the prevailing story is nearly always the opposite. Utopia is right around the bend. We don't need to change anything. Everything is getting better. All the while the people telling that story and making the rules make sure that almost all the fruits of economic progress go to themselves.
Who is telling that story? Trump in 2016 ran on "the country is descending into chaos and only I can stop it".
The people making policy...and I'm talking about the policy that actually gets implemented. Lower taxes on the wealthiest. Leaning into this boondoggle of a health care system, etc. Trump seized on the realpolitik for sure but like everything now...that is the reality tv show distracting us from what has been really going on. That he is literally the embodiment of that dysfunction is all the more perverse.
malchior wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:04 am
Look around now and compare it to what people thought when we were landing on the moon. Pretty stark difference and the reality is it is really, really bad for a lot of people.
"Really, really bad" by today's standards is way, way better than the standards in the 60s.
Agreed. Crime is way better. Healthcare is mostly accessible but not where the people in the 60s envisioned. Poverty is better. All around incrementally better probably but we have the resources to do far more. Our society is essentially building a new model where we lock people into 'classes'. The classes are better off than say 50 years ago but it still is a stifling societal model that is breaking down in front of our eyes.
Perhaps. I certainly don't mind keeping a focus on it and continuing to work toward improving it. But saying we suck because we don't have a utopia yet isn't helping. Recognizing our successes and seeking to build upon them and translating those learnings to new areas of need seems to be more motivating for most people, in my experience.
I think the prevailing story is nearly always the opposite. Utopia is right around the bend. We don't need to change anything. Everything is getting better. All the while the people telling that story and making the rules make sure that almost all the fruits of economic progress go to themselves.
Who is telling that story? Trump in 2016 ran on "the country is descending into chaos and only I can stop it".
The people making policy...and I'm talking about the policy that actually gets implemented. Lower taxes on the wealthiest. Leaning into this boondoggle of a health care system, etc. Trump seized on the realpolitik for sure but like everything now...that is the reality tv show distracting us from what has been really going on. That he is literally the embodiment of that dysfunction is all the more perverse.
I think that's a little different than what "the story" is. The Republican Party MO for awhile now has been to campaign on a mix of generic freedom and social conservatism, then on actual governance focus on regressive tax cuts. But 'the story' that's being told is never utopian, it's "there are big problems and we can fix them" even if there's a healthy dose of dishonesty involved.
El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 12:10 pm
But 'the story' that's being told is never utopian, it's "there are big problems and we can fix them"
I think that is both sides of the coin. Only one side seems to be trying to fix them while the other side obstructs. The other side claims to be trying to fix but can't because the other side obstructs... If my memory is correct, Lewis Carol says you need to ask either party what the other side would do and then do the opposite thing.
LordMortis wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 11:50 am
I'm not sure what you're looking for from me. A citation for my prognostication that increasing wages for low income healthcare workers would be blamed as the drive behind increasing healthcare costs? I can't provide that.
I know. That's why I called you out on it.
That everyone wants to justify their own profit margins while our medical costs outpace costs across the globe with no value addition provided for those costs? Do you really need me to research that?
Nope. That's a completely different premise.
Black Lives Matter
"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 11:03 am
Brand name teaching hospitals are also high margin, as well. I think basically every metropolitan area has at least one brand name hospital with affiliated hospital / doctor networks, where it is essentially impossible to sell an insurance plan without including that hospital / network. Hence those hospital networks get to essentially choose their prices and margins.
But it's a very have and have not situation, as those hospital networks sit alongside other hospital and hospital networks that aren't essential and which are scraping by.
I find it interesting that true hospitals are 80% non-profit, but there are tons of for-profit urgent and emergency care clinics popping up.
Black Lives Matter
"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 12:10 pm
I think that's a little different than what "the story" is. The Republican Party MO for awhile now has been to campaign on a mix of generic freedom and social conservatism, then on actual governance focus on regressive tax cuts. But 'the story' that's being told is never utopian, it's "there are big problems and we can fix them" even if there's a healthy dose of dishonesty involved.
I disagree that it isn't utopian. They may sell it the way you speak but their model is utopian in the sense that they truly believe that markets will cure all ills and they've tied it strongly to Christian values of utopia especially in partnership with some religious voices. They also had a healthy mix of Randian utopian values (e.g. objectivism) tossed in as well where they line up with the 'story of capitalism'.
Still I'd also say to this that focusing on the politicians is only one piece of the story. Listen to the wall street executives who effectively make policy here. They talk about 'doing God's work', more people have been lifted out of poverty, the meritocracy, etc. That is the utopia they are selling. Everything is possible. Everyone has a chance. When in reality most people can't move up the economic ladder.
El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 12:10 pm
I think that's a little different than what "the story" is. The Republican Party MO for awhile now has been to campaign on a mix of generic freedom and social conservatism, then on actual governance focus on regressive tax cuts. But 'the story' that's being told is never utopian, it's "there are big problems and we can fix them" even if there's a healthy dose of dishonesty involved.
I disagree that it isn't utopian. They may sell it the way you speak but their model is utopian in the sense that they truly believe that markets will cure all ills and they've tied it strongly to Christian values of utopia especially in partnership with some religious voices. They also had a healthy mix of Randian utopian values (e.g. objectivism) tossed in as well where they line up with the 'story of capitalism'.
Still I'd also say to this that focusing on the politicians is only one piece of the story. Listen to the wall street executives who effectively make policy here. They talk about 'doing God's work', more people have been lifted out of poverty, the meritocracy, etc. That is the utopia they are selling. Everything is possible. Everyone has a chance. When in reality most people can't move up the economic ladder.
That Wall Street Theocracy. They're everywhere!
And the reality is most people can. High school graduation rates are 85%. 70% go on to college. Over 67% own their own homes.
Yes, we need to work on that other 30%. Yes, we need to make sure your wall street theocrats don't backslide. But you are spouting nonsense.
Black Lives Matter
"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
Kraken wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 1:14 am
Anyone else amused that Drazzil speaks for the working class?
I was thinking the same thing.
I've worked as a dishwasher, a security guard, a porter, a janitor, telemarketing, a sales/marketing, home healthcare, and warehouse. I did live in aide and warehouse sixty hours a week for eight years straight. I've only been unemployed for about eight months, so now that I think about it that probabally gives me more right to speak for the working class then 80% of the knowledge workers who post here.
Kraken wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 1:14 am
Anyone else amused that Drazzil speaks for the working class?
I was thinking the same thing.
I've worked as a dishwasher, a security guard, a porter, a janitor, telemarketing, a sales/marketing, home healthcare, and warehouse. I did live in aide and warehouse sixty hours a week for eight years straight. I've only been unemployed for about eight months, so now that I think about it that probabally gives me more right to speak for the working class then 80% of the knowledge workers who post here.
Ironically, you don't know how right you are.
That would actually make a good poll....
Black Lives Matter
"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 12:10 pm
I think that's a little different than what "the story" is. The Republican Party MO for awhile now has been to campaign on a mix of generic freedom and social conservatism, then on actual governance focus on regressive tax cuts. But 'the story' that's being told is never utopian, it's "there are big problems and we can fix them" even if there's a healthy dose of dishonesty involved.
I disagree that it isn't utopian. They may sell it the way you speak but their model is utopian in the sense that they truly believe that markets will cure all ills and they've tied it strongly to Christian values of utopia especially in partnership with some religious voices. They also had a healthy mix of Randian utopian values (e.g. objectivism) tossed in as well where they line up with the 'story of capitalism'.
Still I'd also say to this that focusing on the politicians is only one piece of the story. Listen to the wall street executives who effectively make policy here. They talk about 'doing God's work', more people have been lifted out of poverty, the meritocracy, etc. That is the utopia they are selling. Everything is possible. Everyone has a chance. When in reality most people can't move up the economic ladder.
That Wall Street Theocracy. They're everywhere!
There is data behind this statement. If you dont feel like reading the paper, the gist is policy preferences of the very wealthy are far more likely to get implemented. Policy preferences of the vast majority of the citizens do not. And I dont think I need to point out that a lot of the wealth and libertarian fantasists are represented by Wall Street.
And the reality is most people can. High school graduation rates are 85%. 70% go on to college. Over 67% own their own homes.
Yes, we need to work on that other 30%. Yes, we need to make sure your wall street theocrats don't backslide. But you are spouting nonsense.
Sure that is all true but you are wrong about the outcomes. And that is a piece from someone at AEI who has a very different view on the why and the medicine. I disagree strongly with the author but the data is strong that economic mobility has been worsening for some time.
There is much more than this but the confluence of wage data, wealth data, economic mobility, household surveys, and tons of data all indicate we have an economy that is obscenely stratified. Heck there is a term for this particular utopian view "opportunity gospel" which is a play on the wealth gospel phenomenon.
malchior wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 7:07 pmThere is data behind this statement.[/url] If you dont feel like reading the paper, the gist is policy preferences of the very wealthy are far more likely to get implemented. Policy preferences of the vast majority of the citizens do not. And I dont think I need to point out that a lot of the wealth and libertarian fantasists are represented by Wall Street.
That's a far cry from Wall Street doing "God's Work." It even crossed party lines. And there's not tremendous difference between what the wealthy want and the non-wealthy except for a few notable exceptions. And even on those, I think you'd side with the wealthy on Homeland Security, Defense Spending, and Farm Subsidies. For some of the smaller ones, I bet you'd side with the wealthy on Infrastructure and Science.
Federal program Wealthy General Public Difference
Infrastructure 50 44 6
Science 45 27 18
Education 31 50 19
Jobs -7 0 7
Environment -8 29 38
Homeland Security -9 41 50
Health Care -19 44 63
Food Stamps -28 0 28
Social Security -33 46 79
Defense Spending -42 3 45
Foreign Aid -53 -53 0
Farm Subsidies -80 0 80
Sure that is all true but you are wrong about the outcomes.[/url] And that is a piece from someone at AEI who has a very different view on the why and the medicine. I disagree strongly with the author but the data is strong that economic mobility has been worsening for some time.
There is much more than this but the confluence of wage data, wealth data, economic mobility, household surveys, and tons of data all indicate we have an economy that is obscenely stratified. Heck there is a term for this particular utopian view "opportunity gospel" which is a play on the wealth gospel phenomenon.
What you're really worried about here is that in 1960 (see chart: upward income mobility in the US), 60% of children earned more than their parents. In 1990, it was 50%.
And the elephant in the room is that a large percentage of this issue are minority issues. If we could take care of that, you'd see a significant bump in all these numbers in the US.
Black Lives Matter
"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
You know what? I haven't been honest with you guys. I was a Bernie Sanders supporter who pulled the lever for Trump before I realized what he was all about. I've been an independant since the second term of Obama when I voted for Jill Stein when I realized that all that progressive Obama hopey changey stuff canidate Obama was just centrist hogwash.
I refuse to legitimize Joe Biden (or any centrist) who offers me nothing. I feel like if Biden runs and loses that the civil war the Democratic party would have would be worth it to our country in the long run. The Democratic party needs to clear itself of the dead wood and rediscover it's spine. If that means another four years of Trump, I am okay with that. Feel free to say whatever. I'm okay with it.
Drazzil wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 5:35 pm
I was a Bernie Sanders supporter who pulled the lever for Trump before I realized what he was all about. I've been an independant since the second term of Obama when I voted for Jill Stein when I realized that all that progressive Obama hopey changey stuff canidate Obama was just centrist hogwash
If I woke up tomorrow with my head sewn to the carpet, I wouldn't be more surprised than I am now.
Drazzil wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 5:35 pm
You know what? I haven't been honest with you guys. I was a Bernie Sanders supporter who pulled the lever for Trump before I realized what he was all about. I've been an independant since the second term of Obama when I voted for Jill Stein when I realized that all that progressive Obama hopey changey stuff canidate Obama was just centrist hogwash.
I refuse to legitimize Joe Biden (or any centrist) who offers me nothing. I feel like if Biden runs and loses that the civil war the Democratic party would have would be worth it to our country in the long run. The Democratic party needs to clear itself of the dead wood and rediscover it's spine. If that means another four years of Trump, I am okay with that. Feel free to say whatever. I'm okay with it.
Drazzil wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 5:35 pm
I refuse to legitimize Joe Biden (or any centrist) who offers me nothing.
What, exactly, are they supposed to offer you? Other than all that government assistance that you feel so entitled to, of course.
I don't feel entitled to anything. I take advantage of it because it's there. If in a year I'm still on any kind of assistance (something I have a lot of reason to doubt) then I will definitely reevaluate my stance on a centrist. But seriously...
Annnd holy fuck does Trump hate the poor. I mean I knew he was talking about cutting programs... But shit. I looked up his record (I've been disgusted with politics lately so I didn't do much research) Man Trump REALLY hates the poor.
Fuck me sideways. Never mind. I'll ride bitch for whoever. G-ddamn.
Drazzil wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 5:35 pm
You know what? I haven't been honest with you guys.
Okay, so I lied about voting for Clinton. A lot of people did. I've sort of put myself on a political news hiatus since Trump got elected. My fault for not realizing how fucking horrible he is/was. You guys are way more informed then I am.
Pardon my idiocy about everything. I think I'm just gonna step out of this thread for a bit, cause apparently upon a review of the most basic of google searches on Trump provides more then enough evidence to warrent me voting for whoever the Dems run.
Drazzil wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:47 pm
Okay, so I lied about voting for Clinton. A lot of people did. I've sort of put myself on a political news hiatus since Trump got elected. My fault for not realizing how fucking horrible he is/was. You guys are way more informed then I am.
Pardon my idiocy about everything. I think I'm just gonna step out of this thread for a bit, cause apparently upon a review of the most basic of google searches on Trump provides more then enough evidence to warrent me voting for whoever the Dems run.
Or, you know: Every thread in this forum. You think we make this shit up? Nobody is that clever/absurd.
Drazzil wrote:
Pardon my idiocy about everything. I think I'm just gonna step out of this thread for a bit, cause apparently upon a review of the most basic of google searches on Trump provides more then enough evidence to warrent me voting for whoever the Dems run.
Welcome to 2015. I hear the new Star Wars is gonna be yuge.
Holman wrote: ↑Thu Aug 29, 2019 7:52 am
In other news, the field of candidates finally qualifying for the 9/12 Democratic debate is down to 10. It will be one night only.
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced Friday that he is dropping out of the 2020 presidential race, ending a campaign that failed to gain traction amid a crowded Democratic primary field.
De Blasio sought to cast himself as the most progressive candidate in the large field of Democrats vying to take on President Donald Trump, and he used his time on the national stage to attack less progressive candidates, namely former Vice President Joe Biden, for positions that he felt were out of step with the current mood of the Democratic Party.
In the end, however, de Blasio was unable to convince liberal Democrats that he was more qualified than Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren or Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, the two leading liberals in the 2020 race.
Sen. Cory Booker must raise nearly $2 million in the next 10 days or the presidential candidate has no "legitimate long-term path forward," according to a memo to staff from the campaign manager obtained by NBC News.
The struggling candidate's campaign manager, Addisu Demissie, warned that after weaker-than-expected fundraising in the early part of September, the campaign needs to rake in another $1.7 million before the last day of the financial quarter on Sept. 30.
...
Demissie said the campaign has enough money to keep going at its current pace if it wanted to, but not enough to expand operations before voting starts early next year and that Booker doesn't want stay in the race if he doesn't think he can win.
"If our campaign is not in a financial position to grow, he's not going to continue to consume resources and attention that can be used to focus on beating Donald Trump, which needs to be everyone's first priority," Demissie wrote.
Booker's campaign has struggled nationally. He averages at just under 3 percent support in the polls, according to Real Clear Politics.
I think that Biden's about to tank as the Ukraine scandal damages his electability story. (And if Joe keeps talking about reaching across the aisle after his GOP colleagues are OK with this, he deserves to fall.) Although Biden's fade should put Warren firmly in first place, the moderate also-rans also stand to gain from that.
Sen. Cory Booker must raise nearly $2 million in the next 10 days or the presidential candidate has no "legitimate long-term path forward," according to a memo to staff from the campaign manager obtained by NBC News.
The struggling candidate's campaign manager, Addisu Demissie, warned that after weaker-than-expected fundraising in the early part of September, the campaign needs to rake in another $1.7 million before the last day of the financial quarter on Sept. 30.
...
Demissie said the campaign has enough money to keep going at its current pace if it wanted to, but not enough to expand operations before voting starts early next year and that Booker doesn't want stay in the race if he doesn't think he can win.
"If our campaign is not in a financial position to grow, he's not going to continue to consume resources and attention that can be used to focus on beating Donald Trump, which needs to be everyone's first priority," Demissie wrote.
Booker's campaign has struggled nationally. He averages at just under 3 percent support in the polls, according to Real Clear Politics.
And that couldn't possibly be a fundraising stunt /sarcasm.
I like Booker, and wish he were doing better, but this is pretty transparent.
