![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 22 to 46 of 85. Go back in thread:
Posted by alexandra_k on November 17, 2005, at 17:14:27
In reply to Re: just one more... » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on November 17, 2005, at 13:44:55
> But then how come...
> The distribution of wealth is still so imbalanced???"
> A lot of the problem is that those with money know how to handle it, amass it, make it work for them. And they pass this economic knowledge down.
But that amounts to whose *with* money handling their money well. I'm most concerned... About those *without* enough money to meet their basic needs in the first place.
> Accumulating wealth has more to do with living habits than earning potential.Well... For those who earn an excess to what they need, sure.
> I can't see (except for the most destitute homeless) why anyone who makes ends meet couldn't do it on 5% to 10% less and save and invest the rest.
Maybe... It comes of people *just* being able to meet their basic needs. Not being able to do that on 5% or 10% less.
And maybe... It comes of those little 'luxuries' in life being what... Enables one to persist in living. To manage to get up out of bed and work long hours in a mind numbing job etc (as Cricket noted). Because... The minimum wage is pretty low... Pretty low indeed.
I found this article... I don't know how dodgey it is... But it said that a low ranking military guy would get $1,000 per month to live in New York City. That... There were food banks set up for military personel because... Sometimes they needed that. Even with their wives earning two jobs... And for those with kids... So there... You have hard working people... Still unable to meet their basic needs. I'm not sure that they could do with 5-10% less.
Thats to say nothing of all the unskilled laborers out there. Factory workers. Etc.
If you are talking about the middle class... Those who have an excess to their basic needs in the first place... Then savings helps. Sure.
I'm a little concerned that this idea...
That *most* people could be a millionaire if only they saved harder. If only they worked harder to save harder. I'm a bit concerned that this idea... Is what 'resigns people' to accept the status quo. If they are not a millionaire then it is somehow their own fault because they didn't work harder or save harder.But...
Is it fair that some people are born millionaires already while others are not?
Is it fair that some people *can* work harder and save harder and become millionaires, while others could not?
Is it fair that a large portion of the worlds population doesn't have their basic needs met...
While other people... Could possibly be millionaires?And if it is not fair...
Then what (if anything) should be done about it?
Posted by Gabbix2 on November 18, 2005, at 18:04:55
In reply to Re: just one more... » AuntieMel, posted by cricket on November 17, 2005, at 15:37:53
> However, the problem is so much deeper than that.
>
> And right now I am speaking from my own personal experience and not from any statistics or sociological study or anything like that.
>
>
> When you live in a neighborhood where it's almost impossible to get decent food (fresh produce or bread) and everything is fast food or chemical ridden sugar laden indefinite shelf life cr*p...
>
> When you work at a mind numbing job for 10 hours a day ...
>
> Then ride public transportation (standing, jammed in like a sardine) for another two hours ...
>
> When you come home to a cramped apartment with a bunch of other people and you have nowhere to go to be alone and think for a moment...
>
> When everything is noise and dirt and bad smells ...
>
>
> When your only form of more mind numbing entertainment is a television that parades images of glamor and glitz and incredible wealth before your very weary eyes ...
>
> When you lie in bed at night and listen to the gun shots...
>
> Then someone could give me all the lessons in money saving in the world but you know what I still want those jeans that are way too expensive and that fancy coffee latte junk and even that Ipod because you know what for one moment that makes me feel okay, that I'm like other people.
>
> I know many would say I'd be better off saving that $100 or $1,000. But $1,000 is not going to get me out of here, not even $10,000 will do that. $100,000 - maybe? But where in the world would that come from?
>
You spoke for me too there Cricket.
(Though I don't deal with gunshots, I'm so sorry you have to)
Things are getting much better for me, Still there are *many* times I cannot not afford laundry, or tampons, or aspirin or even polysporin and bandaids when I have an infection..things other people just have on hand.
I was *so* harrassed about my very occasional coffee out, (maybe once every two months)
And I remember thinking, they have no idea, for that half an hour out, in that coffee shop with the lovely atmosphere, I feel like part of the world, I feel human, and it keeps me alive.I realize you are not on assistance, I am.
And I have to say that those "mysterious" people out there who prefer assistance to working (having others tax dollars foot the bill for them while they are a couch potato) must be selling drugs, or have another form of illicit income, because with all the time you have, there is nothing you can do with it. What, go shopping?Go out with friends for drinks? HA! You don't even look forward to meals because you can only afford crap. And you can't afford cable to watch t.v while you're being the so called "couch potato" If you are doing something with it, something worthwhile, like volunteering well where's the problem?
Besides, welfare recipients as far as I'm concerned are more than those on what's considered public assistance. It's not uncommon for a politician, after 2 years in office (or less in some cases) to retire with with a yearly salary in the triple digits, even when they've been forced out because of impropriety. That to me, is nothing more than welfare.
Posted by Gabbix2 on November 18, 2005, at 18:29:19
In reply to Re: just one more... » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on November 17, 2005, at 13:44:55
> I can't see (except for the most destitute homeless) why anyone who makes ends meet couldn't do it on 5% to 10% less and save and invest the rest. It really doesn't take cutting much - a CD here, a movie there, a meatless night, whatever fits.
I'm speaking from a Canadian perspective here I don't know what the U.S public assistance rates are.
Here there are people who choose to be homeless because if they can find someone who will sign a fake rent receipt they can collect money from Welfare for rent, and then actually have enough to live on, and no I'm not criticizing that.A single person on welfare receives 500.00 month. 325.00 of that is designated for rent, which means if you share an apartment and get cheaper rent, say 250.00, then 250.00 is all you'll get from welfare.
A study I read about just yesterday (which I really didn't need to know) showed that a single person on welfare, on average lives on 20.00 a month. That's for everything but rent, because they have to take usually at least 75.00 out of the alloted support money, to make up for the cost of a place to live. Even a rooming house is 425.00
Twenty dollars a week (slightly less) is what I lived on until I recieved disability benefits.
Sure there's a food bank here, I can't afford bus fare to get to it though.I think that's why it's not just the homeless who can't save 10% of their income.
Posted by Jakeman on November 22, 2005, at 20:01:00
In reply to Re: just one more... » AuntieMel, posted by Gabbix2 on November 18, 2005, at 18:29:19
The big picture is who is better off. There has beeen a massive shift of wealth to the upper income classes in the US over the past 20 years. This phenomenon does not sustain capitalism in the long run, because middle and low income people need money in their pockets to buy stuff and keep the whole machine running. I'm speculating, but that may be a reason that billionaire George Soros supported Kerry in the last election. A quick search came across this article:
"Meanwhile, income inequality has grown. In 2001, the top 20 percent of households for the first time raked in more than half of all income, while the share earned by those in the middle was the lowest in nearly 50 years."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34235-2004Sep19_2.html
I need to research this more, but it's possible that the the reason the rich are paying the most tax is because their incomes have increased.
warm regards,
~Jake
Posted by AuntieMel on November 23, 2005, at 13:45:14
In reply to Re: just one more... » AuntieMel, posted by cricket on November 17, 2005, at 15:37:53
I'm sorry if I came across as judgemental. I didn't mean to.
It's hard for me to imagine what those conditions are like. I'm from the south where even the poorest of the poor have some elbow room.
When I had a baby at home and worked three part-time jobs to pay for it and go to school I at least had some breathing space and room to think.
I didn't know squat about saving then. I'm still learning.
I'm just trying to say there is a big difference between *earning* a lot and *having* a lot (definitition of "a lot" being a relative, and nebulous thing)
Posted by AuntieMel on November 23, 2005, at 13:55:12
In reply to Re: just one more..., posted by AuntieMel on November 23, 2005, at 13:45:14
Posted by alexandra_k on November 23, 2005, at 15:01:08
In reply to Re: just one more..., posted by AuntieMel on November 23, 2005, at 13:45:14
> When I had a baby at home and worked three part-time jobs to pay for it and go to school I at least had some breathing space and room to think.
Wow. I can't comprehend... How some people can do that. Really.
> I'm just trying to say there is a big difference between *earning* a lot and *having* a lot (definitition of "a lot" being a relative, and nebulous thing)Yeah, there surely is. I'm pretty bad with money now. It comes and boy oh boy does it go. I think the problem is that I'm so used to going without. And constantly worrying about it... When I got my Masters Scholarship I spent it in about one month. Gone. Brought a TV and a laptop and a surround sound speaker system and an i-pod etc. Not exactly necessities... But I guess I was kinda thinking 'when on earth am I ever going to get the opportunity to do this again???'
And I guess... It is those kinds of things that help one feel human...
But yeah, in a way I regret having done that.
Things are going to be hard if I move overseas to do my PhD. And I blame myself for that... Because I could have saved that... But I chose not to.And in the A semester I was doing a lot of work tutoring. And the more money that comes in... The quicker that money seems to go out. Drinking coffee... Buying lunch... Eating out more... Clothes. But none of that was really necessary, that is true.
I was thinking...
The trouble with having a welfare system so that people get their basic needs met for free...
Is that you can't really do that when people work long hours for minimum wage and still can't meet their basic needs.
I mean... One would be better off on welfare than working...
Of course people would stop working to go on welfare.Hmm.
I guess...
Sort out the minimum wage first...
(Which would have ramifications of pay rises right through the working class...)
Then look at welfare???;-)
You know... It could be done...
With that tiny percentage having over half the wealth in the whole darned country and all...
Posted by Dinah on November 23, 2005, at 22:30:57
In reply to Re: just one more... » AuntieMel, posted by alexandra_k on November 23, 2005, at 15:01:08
Economics is rarely simple. A major raise in the minimum wage has many effects, not all the intended ones. For one thing, you just can't take one group of people and raise their hourly rate without a ripple effect in the rest of the employees of the region. Those who now make the minimum wage + $5, or +$10, or +$25, would likely expect a raise in their wages as well. This would all mean added costs to a company. Companies rarely absorb cost without action. There are two possible actions. Cutting costs (by perhaps cutting employees or perhaps by outsourcing to areas with lower labor costs) or raising prices (causing a raise in inflation and reducing the actual buying power of the raise in the minimum wage). The actual inflation rate could increase by more than the increased cost. Since most small companies, at least, judge their bottom line by percentages rather than strict dollars. So they want x% gross profit, x% net profit. So a $5 increase in cost either means a $5 cut in other costs or a $5+5% profit increase in prices. Not to even mention the countless other costs that are based on the $ amount of payroll. Workers comp insurance comes easily to mind.
By the way, most big businesses are owned by regular folk. Their stock is held in retirement accounts everywhere, and savings for retirees, and middle class people. It's rarely helpful to the economy at large to assume that "big business" will absorb the cost of anything without also remembering that. Certainly, I suppose a lot of raises could be absorbed by the those exorbitant executive salaries that we all hear about. But honestly, is that likely to happen in the real world?
And the owners of small businesses? Well, a lot of them are my heroes. Putting their entire wealth on the line on shaky prospects. Often earning less than their employees, when times are lean. I hesitate to think what raising the minimum wage substantially, and the resulting higher salary demands by people all up the pay scale, would mean to those people who are trying to make ends meet in the current business climate where increased insurance costs alone... Well, dont' get me started on that.
I'm assuming you're proposing a rather drastic increase in the minimum wage?
The only way you can control one element of the economy without countless other elements also being shifted is in an economy controlled by the government. But that style of economy clearly has drawbacks as well.
Posted by Dinah on November 23, 2005, at 22:33:38
In reply to Re: just one more... » AuntieMel, posted by alexandra_k on November 23, 2005, at 15:01:08
Mind you. I'm not actually coming out against raising the minimum wage. I am actually rather shocked when a major US company blames the lack of health insurance for its workers on cutbacks in Medicaid.
I'm just saying that minimum wage increases do not occur in a vacuum. And that in order to really do any good, all possible outcomes need to be considered.
Posted by Dinah on November 23, 2005, at 22:34:50
In reply to Re: just one more... » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on November 23, 2005, at 22:33:38
Posted by alexandra_k on November 24, 2005, at 21:01:13
In reply to Re: just one more... » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on November 23, 2005, at 22:33:38
Hmm. Yeah... I don't really know anything about economics or management...
I was just thinking...
That tiny top percent having over half the wealth in the whole darned country...
That doesn't seem fair to me.
And so I was trying to think about what could be done about that...
But yeah, I guess it is hard to do it at the level of the minimum wage...
I appreciated that that would have ramifications right through...
With the people getting minimum + whatever.
But I also appreciate that having to pay employees more could be what makes some of the smaller businesses go under.But then I do think that the minimum wage jolly well should be such that you can meet your basic needs on it. Actually... I think people should get that for free. Working should give you MORE than that.
It is hard... Becuase of people on the borderline. In New Zealand there can be a situation where if you are working for minimum wage then you can be a little worse off than being on welfare. But in those cases... People tend to go on welfare and get into training course or whatever so once they come out the other end then they are able to earn more than the minimum wage in their job. And so yeah, the government supports them to do that, but at the end of the day you have a more educated population and more skilled workers earning more money.
But yeah, it isn't so fair about the borderline between minimum wage and welfare. But even though I don't think that is fair I think it is even less fair to not have welfare because of that, if you get what I mean. Basic needs first... Then sort out the rest.
I'm not sure how reflective the minimum wage is... Because if you are in a job where you get tips then you earn more than the minimum wage once you take tips into account. We don't tip as a matter of course over here. Occasionally people tip but not very often. It certainly isn't expected. The workers wages are built into the cost of whatever you buy. If they do a crap job then they get fired. If they do a good job then they should get promoted. Or whatever. But then some minimum wage jobs don't involve tips... So... Hmm... Hard to know what to say about those... In those cases... I'm tempted to say that it seems a little exploitative to hire people and pay them not even enough to meet their basic needs. If the business goes under because it can't afford to pay them reasonably then... Well... Sorry but...
I dunno.
I would have thought the government could have done a little more to help out the smaller businesses... Giving them contracts to rebuild Iraq instead of sticking with the businesses that were doing just fine at any rate. But oh well.
I guess I just think that people should get their basic needs met...
And so yeah, that means them having enough money / resources to do that...
I have been thinking (a little) about what the world might be like if we didn't have money and if resources were equally distributed (to prevent a bartering economy). I guess you would produce what you needed and help people you care about.
Lots of people would stop working...
That is true.
Be hard to find people to work in an assembly line or whatever...
People wouldn't do those things without the incentive of money / resources being in it with them.Not that I think that there is anything wrong with people having money / resources...
But when a tiny percentage has over half the wealth...
And other people struggle to meet their basic needs...That doesn't seem fair to me.
But what can be done about it???
I don't know.
Posted by alexandra_k on November 24, 2005, at 21:01:42
In reply to Gosh.... I miss Daddy so much. (nm), posted by Dinah on November 23, 2005, at 22:34:50
Posted by cricket on November 25, 2005, at 14:52:47
In reply to Re: just one more..., posted by AuntieMel on November 23, 2005, at 13:45:14
Hey Auntie Mel,
I didn't feel like you were being judgmental. I just wanted to throw one more perspective into the mix.
It's a big country, huh? I haven't done more than travel through the south once and yeah in many ways it did seem very different.
But people are people, right?
Life can be hard no matter what.
Posted by Declan on November 25, 2005, at 17:22:32
In reply to Re: just one more... » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on November 23, 2005, at 22:30:57
The thing that get my goat is chief executives who get share price related bonuses (for streamlining) as well as huge salaries, at the same time as governments are cutting minimum wages to help business (here in Australia). Small business is hard work and financially unrewarding often enough I know. But it just seems obscene that someone can get paid $20Mpa for (amongst other things) sacking a whole lot of people while junior wages are so low and conditions eroding. My parents were wildly conservative, but they would have felt exactly the same. I suppose most people do. I dunno.
Declan
Posted by Jakeman on November 25, 2005, at 19:54:00
In reply to Re: just one more... » AuntieMel, posted by cricket on November 25, 2005, at 14:52:47
"The heads of America's 500 biggest companies received an aggregate 54% pay raise last year. As a group, their total compensation amounted to $5.1 billion, versus $3.3 billion in fiscal 2003."
forbes.com 04/20/05
I noticed that the CEO of my health insurance company, United Health Care (which is constantly raising premiums and copays) is one of the top ten highest paid CEO's. How could anyone even spend 200 million in a year?
warm regards ~Jake
Posted by Declan on November 25, 2005, at 20:40:26
In reply to Re: just one more..., posted by Jakeman on November 25, 2005, at 19:54:00
The head of your health care company earns $200M a year? What can you say? If he was worth half that he would have doubled your premiums and halved your benefits?
We are living in particularly shameless times. The world needs a day of repentance.
The poor chap is probably having trouble making ends meet.
Declan
Posted by Jakeman on November 25, 2005, at 21:59:56
In reply to Re: just one more..., posted by Declan on November 25, 2005, at 20:40:26
> The head of your health care company earns $200M a year? What can you say? If he was worth half that he would have doubled your premiums and halved your benefits?
> We are living in particularly shameless times. The world needs a day of repentance.
> The poor chap is probably having trouble making ends meet.
> DeclanI mis-spoke, that was someone else. William McGuire, CEO of United Health Group, made 125M last year. United has been a darling of Wall Street due to their profitablity. Meanwhile patient costs have gone up and services we receive (like 5 minute dr. visits) have shrank. It's quite amazing.
~Jake
Posted by alexandra_k on November 26, 2005, at 3:12:31
In reply to Re: just one more... » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on November 23, 2005, at 22:30:57
> Companies rarely absorb cost without action. There are two possible actions. Cutting costs (by perhaps cutting employees or perhaps by outsourcing to areas with lower labor costs) or raising prices (causing a raise in inflation and reducing the actual buying power of the raise in the minimum wage).
Why would they do this?????
> they want x% gross profit, x% net profit.
Hmm.
Profit vs welfare of employees.
Interesting...> By the way, most big businesses are owned by regular folk. Their stock is held in retirement accounts everywhere, and savings for retirees, and middle class people.
I read in that article I gave you the link to...
About how a small percentage of the population had over half the wealth...
Well... I think it was an even smaller percentage of the population that had something like 80-90% of the stocks, bonds, and shares.
Interesting...>It's rarely helpful to the economy at large to assume that "big business" will absorb the cost of anything...
Not volountarily they won't.
Thats something that I am a bit worried about 'the economy at large'.
If it is all about the 'economy at large' that makes it sound like it is for the welfare of every individual in the country.
But when a tiny percentage of the country has the majority of the wealth the benefit of the 'economy at large' mostly benefits that tiny percentage.> Certainly, I suppose a lot of raises could be absorbed by the those exorbitant executive salaries that we all hear about.
Yes indeed. That is my thought right there.
>But honestly, is that likely to happen in the real world?
I don't imagine they will do it volountarily, no.
Thats where the government should step in with laws IMO.
> And the owners of small businesses? Well, a lot of them are my heroes. Putting their entire wealth on the line on shaky prospects. Often earning less than their employees, when times are lean.I hear you there.
But then those people... Aren't the ones I'm worried about.> The only way you can control one element of the economy without countless other elements also being shifted is in an economy controlled by the government. But that style of economy clearly has drawbacks as well.
Don't you think that the government IS controlling the economy currently?
I mean... The laws they make...
The laws they fail to make...
All affect the economy.
Currently... The government has encouraged a division in wealth. The wealthy profit (and make more) whereas the people who work for minimum wage... The people who earn just over minimum wage... The people who don't earn anything... Well... What is the government doing for them?
Posted by Dinah on November 26, 2005, at 12:56:27
In reply to Re: just one more... » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on November 26, 2005, at 3:12:31
Sorry. Don't agree.
Not sure where the figures about the stocks and bonds came from. Nearly everyone who has a 401K has their money invested in mutual funds, most of which consist of stocks and bonds. The retirement of just about everyone who has a retirement plan rests on hte health of "big business".
By a controlled economy I mean a controlled economy. Not an economy influenced by incentives, or with compliance laws.
Economic well-being has traditionally been judged by percentage gross profit, percentage net profit, or return on investment (having to do with the profit returned per dollar of stock value, or something like that). Clearly a company that makes $100,000 a year on $5,000,000 of sales is healthier than a company that makes $100,000 a year on $500,000,000 of sales, so it makes sense.
Exactly how much a government does for people in low income brackets or who earn no income is up for debate. Of course, who makes no income is also up for debate. The underground economy is booming, thank you very much.
I see two keys in making this situation better. One is education. Two should be education as well. And so should three, four, five, six, and seven. I come from an area with such poor education, that many of our residents make minimum wage, unless they manage to get into a profession with tips. And we can't attract better jobs because our education system is so bad.
But I'd also like to see major improvements made in the medical care system. The insurance portability was a big step forward. But it didn't go far enough. Being able to keep your health insurance at a reasonable rate is vital. Getting help paying for premiums if necessary is cost effective for the government as well as anyone else. And I'd personally like to see Medicaid replaced by an insurance pool, with subsidized premiums. Our government hasn't shown a great record in the medical insurance industry, and I'd rather see the poor have access to the same insurance plans as the middle class, with the premiums subsidized. You'd still probably have a small segment of the market, nursing homes, group homes, etc. that would have to be directly funded by the government.
How familiar are you with the tax laws, welfare laws, disability laws, earned income credit, etc. that exist in the United States? It certainly is not a perfect system, but I don't get the sense that it is exactly as you are portraying it. And I say that as someone who knows a fair number of people in my area who are part of the system.
I rail at the injustices as much as anyone (on both sides, I might add - since I do know people who abuse the system). But if I had the energy and the will to really want to make a difference, I'd learn all I could about how things really work now, and study psychology and economics to gain the perspective needed to gain a reasonable understanding of the likely effects of proposed changes. I would be a voracious consumer of all sorts of information from all sorts of sources. I'd probably be especially careful to read sources that came from a different perspective than the ones I would normally choose, to make sure that I cleansed myself of any biases that might cloud my judgement or influence my decision processes.
But I really don't have the energy to do any of that. :(
I heard a story that NASA hired a whole bunch of scientists who said it was impossible to get to the moon, and made sure they had solutions to all of the problems these scientists brought up.
I'm afraid my best role is that of those scientists.
Posted by Dinah on November 26, 2005, at 13:10:31
In reply to Re: just one more... » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on November 26, 2005, at 3:12:31
By the way, the reason I missed Daddy was that he had more energy and will to do those things than I did. He was a voracious consumer of information, and once I became old enough to discuss religion and politics, we whiled away many hours that way.
One of his favorite areas of interest was the unintended consequence. He was much better at seeing and describing him than I will ever be. And he was not infrequently spot on in his analysis. I am the merest dabbler in comparison and really consider myself quite unworthy as a participant.
Posted by Dinah on November 26, 2005, at 19:12:10
In reply to Re: just one more... » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on November 26, 2005, at 13:10:31
I see I'm having my word substitution problems again. Sorry for any confusion reading my posts.
Posted by alexandra_k on November 26, 2005, at 20:11:54
In reply to Re: just one more... » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on November 26, 2005, at 12:56:27
> Sorry. Don't agree.
:-)
> Not sure where the figures about the stocks and bonds came from.> The richest 10 percent of families own about 85 percent of all outstanding stocks. They own about 85 percent of all financial securities, 90 percent of all business assets. These financial assets and business equity are even more concentrated than total wealth.
http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03interviewswolff.html
What is 401K?
> The retirement of just about everyone who has a retirement plan rests on hte health of "big business".
How many people in the US have a retirement plan?
> By a controlled economy I mean a controlled economy. Not an economy influenced by incentives, or with compliance laws.
I don't really know anything about that...
> Economic well-being has traditionally been judged by percentage gross profit, percentage net profit, or return on investment (having to do with the profit returned per dollar of stock value, or something like that). Clearly a company that makes $100,000 a year on $5,000,000 of sales is healthier than a company that makes $100,000 a year on $500,000,000 of sales, so it makes sense.Right. I think there should be laws on how much you have to pay employees, though. I mean... There is a minimum wage at present. But that minimum wage isn't enough. Could you live on minimum wage? I don't believe I could.
> Exactly how much a government does for people in low income brackets or who earn no income is up for debate.
Yeah.
> The underground economy is booming, thank you very much.
Yeah. I wonder why.
Hmm.
Minimum wage vs crime...
I wonder what I would choose ;-)
> I see two keys in making this situation better. One is education.Yeah. Education is important. Really very. But in order to get yourself an education... It helps things along rather if you are in a good state of health and are getting enough food etc.
>I come from an area with such poor education, that many of our residents make minimum wage, unless they manage to get into a profession with tips.
Hmm.
So... They work hard and still struggle...> And we can't attract better jobs because our education system is so bad.
Hmm.
> Being able to keep your health insurance at a reasonable rate is vital.It is when health insurance is a requisite for treatment, yup.
> I'd rather see the poor have access to the same insurance plans as the middle class, with the premiums subsidized.
That sounds good. But once again... Could you afford to live someplace and have enough to eat on minimum wage? How about health insurance - even if that insurance was 'subsidised'?
> You'd still probably have a small segment of the market, nursing homes, group homes, etc. that would have to be directly funded by the government.
Yeah.
> How familiar are you with the tax laws, welfare laws, disability laws, earned income credit, etc. that exist in the United States?Hardly at all. I don't know very much about the situation in NZ either.
> It certainly is not a perfect system, but I don't get the sense that it is exactly as you are portraying it. And I say that as someone who knows a fair number of people in my area who are part of the system.
Right.
Well...
I guess I'm thinking of minimum wage...
That there are people who attempt to live on that.
I'm thinking you qualify for 6 months unemployment benefit, then thats all folks.
I'm thinking that without health insurance you really struggle to get medical care / afford prescriptions.
I'm thinking that the division in wealth is one of the worst in the world.
Its that latter point that really gets to me.> I rail at the injustices as much as anyone (on both sides, I might add - since I do know people who abuse the system).
People who 'abuse the system'...
If they didn't 'abuse' the system would they have enough to meet their basic needs?>But if I had the energy and the will to really want to make a difference, I'd learn all I could about how things really work now,
Yeah. To know the facts.
> and study psychology and economics to gain the perspective needed to gain a reasonable understanding of the likely effects of proposed changes.
I was starting to think politics. I don't really want to do economics. There is math in economics :-(
>I would be a voracious consumer of all sorts of information from all sorts of sources. I'd probably be especially careful to read sources that came from a different perspective than the ones I would normally choose, to make sure that I cleansed myself of any biases that might cloud my judgement or influence my decision processes.
Yeah. I guess I'd stick to the facts. And people who offer well reasoned interpretations of the facts. There is a lot of mis-information out there... It would be interesting to study from the perspective of clearing those mis-understandings up and hearing some of the arguments from both sides.
> But I really don't have the energy to do any of that. :(Yeah. I don't imagine I'll bother either ;-)
> I heard a story that NASA hired a whole bunch of scientists who said it was impossible to get to the moon, and made sure they had solutions to all of the problems these scientists brought up.
> I'm afraid my best role is that of those scientists.:-)
Thats okay. Somebody has to do it.
:-)I guess I think...
That the inbalance in the distribution of wealth is unfair.
It is that that I'm looking at fixing...
Posted by alexandra_k on November 26, 2005, at 20:17:32
In reply to Re: just one more... » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on November 26, 2005, at 20:11:54
Ah. Here we go (from the above link)
MM: A couple years ago there was a great deal of talk of the democratization of the stock market. Is that reflected in these figures, or was it an illusion?
Wolff: I would say it was more of an illusion. What did happen is that the percentage of households with some ownership of stocks, including mutual funds and pension accounts like 401(k)s, did go up very dramatically over the last 20 years. In 1983, only 32 percent of households had some ownership of stock.By 2001, the share was 51 percent. So there has been much more widespread stock ownership, in terms of number of families.
But a lot of these families have very small stakes in the stock market. In 2001, only 32 percent of households owned more than $10,000 of stock, and only 25 percent of households owned more than $25,000 worth of stock.
So a lot of these new stock owners have had relatively small holdings of stock. There hasn’t been much dilution in the share of stock owned by the richest 1 or 10 percent. Stock ownership is still heavily concentrated among rich families. The richest 10 percent own 85 percent of all stock.
As a result, the stock market boom of the 1990s disproportionately benefited rich families. There were some gains by middle class families, but their average stock holdings were too small to make much difference in their overall wealth.
Posted by Dinah on November 27, 2005, at 1:27:38
In reply to Re: just one more... » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on November 26, 2005, at 20:11:54
> What is 401K?
A 401K is a retirement plan where you can put pretax income aside for your retirement, and your company will match up to a certain percent of your salary. A lot of the old pension plans have been supplanted by 401K's. Admittedly this is because it is cheaper for employers to make matching contributions, because there are those employees who will choose not to participate.
> > The retirement of just about everyone who has a retirement plan rests on hte health of "big business".
>
> How many people in the US have a retirement plan?Most middle class families have at least some retirement funds. In my house, it's my husband because I'm a spendthrift. I don't know where we fall in the percentage of income scale, but we're middle class. And we would consider a significant long term drop in the stock market to be not such a good thing.
> > The underground economy is booming, thank you very much.
>
> Yeah. I wonder why.
> Hmm.
> Minimum wage vs crime...
> I wonder what I would choose ;-)I don't really consider it all that funny. It puts two different people making the same amount of money in two different positions based on whether the money is earned above or below the table. That doesn't seem fair to me. Especially when I personalize it among the people I know.
I'm not blaming the *people* around here for the lack of an education. The system could use a lot of improvement. I'm just saying that's the long term key to this problem.
You make it sound as if we throw the poor to the wolves in our country, and that's just not true. Medicaid pays for health care, although admittedly there is a lot of problems with that system. Which is why I propose that the government pay for the health insurance rather than pay for the medical care directly. Kids get free lunches, and for the most part free breakfasts as well, if they need it, during the school year at least. Two of my close friends were able to make use of WIC (don't ask me, something about food for women with young children), even though they qualified as working poor rather than unemployed. And I'm pretty sure they qualified for Medicaid as well, so they and their kids were able to go to the same doctors that I and my kids went to. The big problem was scheduling time off to take their kids to the doctors. Especially difficult since they used public transportation. I have the luxury of telling my employers that I have to go to the doctors and I'll finish my work on my off hours. Not everyone has that luxury, and that sort of thing was the biggest obstacle to health care. This was a few years back, and I'm not sure if policies have changed substantially. But at that time there was a safety net for the working poor. Both my friends used it wisely and responsibly. Which is not to say it was easy for them. It wasn't.
> I was starting to think politics. I don't really want to do economics. There is math in economics :-(
Isn't it kind of hard to do politics without a good grasp of economics? Even if you aren't actually running for an office yourself, in order to evaluate the effectiveness of politicians, isn't a good grasp of the facts and a knowledge of economics vital?
You know, Alexandra, most people endorse the same vision of the future. It's the how to get there that has the politicians at odds.
Posted by alexandra_k on November 27, 2005, at 18:38:05
In reply to Re: just one more..., posted by Dinah on November 27, 2005, at 1:27:38
> A 401K is a retirement plan where you can put pretax income aside for your retirement...
Okay, thanks for that.
> > > The retirement of just about everyone who has a retirement plan rests on hte health of "big business".
Okay. In the above link he said...
>a lot of these new stock owners have had relatively small holdings of stock. There hasn’t been much dilution in the share of stock owned by the richest 1 or 10 percent. Stock ownership is still heavily concentrated among rich families. The richest 10 percent own 85 percent of all stock.
>the stock market boom of the 1990s disproportionately benefited rich families. There were some gains by middle class families, but their average stock holdings were too small to make much difference in their overall wealth.
(In case you are worried about the source he is an economist at NYU. He has written a book on what should be done about the situation - I should check it out sometime)
The rich get richer...
And the middle class benefit just enough for them to think that THEIR welfare is dependent on the economy. I bet... That the economy could afford to suffer somewhat and the majority of Americans could still be better off if the wealth within the country was distributed a little more fairly...I mean... In NZ our economy isn't doing nearly so well as the US economy. But I would say... That in terms of quality of life (basic needs being met from within the law)... More people in New Zealand have that than US citizens...
> I don't really consider it all that funny.
I don't consider it funny either. Really, I wasn't attempting to make a joke. I think that sometimes... That is the harsh reality. Some people simply cannot make ends meet from within the law and thus they are forced to revert to unlawful activities. Other people weigh things up a little: minimum wage vs. crime. Thats not at all a laughing matter...
> I'm not blaming the *people* around here for the lack of an education. The system could use a lot of improvement. I'm just saying that's the long term key to this problem.
Yes. And if the government... Took some of that money from the wealthy... They could use that money to spend on healthcare, education, and housing for people who cannot afford to get a reasonable quality / amount of these things if *left* to their own devices. In doing that... Well... It would be an investment for future generations. It would go some way towards remidying the inequalities that people are born into through no fault of their own.
> You make it sound as if we throw the poor to the wolves in our country, and that's just not true.I don't think they are thrown to the wolves...
I think they are fairly much *left* to fend for themselves as best they can.
They are left to rely on the charity of individuals.
They are left to beg for money and food...
Yeah, I guess that is the way it seems to me...> Kids get free lunches, and for the most part free breakfasts as well, if they need it, during the school year at least.
:-)
Thats good.
How about their parents?
How come they don't have enough money / food to feed their kids?
How do their parents eat?> The big problem was scheduling time off to take their kids to the doctors.
Yeah. I think there is a lot society could / should do about caring for kids (paid maternity leave, paid post-natal leave, paid time off to care for sick kids etc)
> Isn't it kind of hard to do politics without a good grasp of economics?
I imagine you learn a bit about economics in virtue of studying politics. Everything... Inter-relates ultimately...
>Even if you aren't actually running for an office yourself
Oh, hell no!!! LOL!!! No what I'm thinking... Is something along the lines of a policy analyst. Maybe for some organisation like the one I've been giving you links to all the time. Some conscience group. I'd do it volountarily... But I guess I'd have to stay in New Zealand to qualify for welfare while I'm doing the volountary work. When you really think about it, what is volountary work but work that society doesn't value enough to pay people for???
> in order to evaluate the effectiveness of politicians, isn't a good grasp of the facts and a knowledge of economics vital?
I suppose it would be if one thought that the measure of 'effectiveness' had to do with economic growth or something like that. IMO... One hungry kid is one too many hungry kid. One sick kid is one too many sick kid. There are hungy and sick kids in the US and you can go on about 'economic growth' as much as you like, IMO something should be done about that. And the fact that that is not on the agenda... Killing civilians in Iraq and building nukes and exploiting the worlds oil resources is prioritised... Well... That tells me something is wrong. I don't need to know the figures on economic growth to figure that the economic growth hasn't benefited the majority of the citizens in the US; rather... the rich get richer and the poor fairly much are left to fend for themselves on a minimum wage that I couldn't meet my basic needs on.
> You know, Alexandra, most people endorse the same vision of the future.I really don't think... That they do. I used to think that, but I have changed my mind fairly recently.
Some people... Look out for them and their own. They want MORE than other people. They want to assert their DOMINANCE their SUPERIORITY. They don't care who they trample on to get there. They think like is about survival of the fittest. A horribly distorted version of Darwinism called SOCIAL DARWINISM.
That is very different from looking out for other people and having a sense of social responsibility. Thinking that one has an obligation to help people / societies that are worse off than oneself. Thinking... That it is worth doing that even when it means that one has a little less money / wealth in ones own life and in the life of ones friends and family.
Instead of thinking 'if we make them self-sufficient then we will only have another arms race with a new set of people sometime in the future' thinking 'if we help them be self-sufficient then maybe they will help us one day if we need it and maybe the world will be a better place'.
>It's the how to get there that has the politicians at odds.
Yeah. Like world peace.
Some people think the only way to achieve world peace is for everybody to have the same weapon technology. The same nukes. Then the threat of global destruction will ensure that nobody nukes anybody else.Other people think the only way to achieve world peace is for everybody to disarm. For nobody to have weapons. Then nobody will set off a nuke in a moment of irrational paranoia or whatever. Then nobody will die if an *accident* happens.
And I appreciate the issue about nuclear power now...
The nuclear power stations...
Produce a by-product that can be used to make nuclear weapons.
Where you have nuclear power then you have the componants to make yourself a nuclear weapon.And that is why...
No nukes on NZ waters...
And it is in virtue of that...
That New Zealand lost its free trade agreement with the United States.
Because we wouldn't let nuclear powered ships in our waters. Because we wouldn't let nuclear weapons onto our land(Though apparantly US flights aren't required to declare what is on board when they land in our airports so we are kidding ourselves if we think our country is totally nuclear free).
We are currently persuing...
A free trade agreement with china...
(rumoured to be the worlds next super-power)
Politics.
Sigh.Why can't people just be nice to one another?
I think it is about...
Clamping down on the small stuff.Hitler should have been prosecuted well before he got into power...
And other people in Germany well before that...
It would have prevented the situation getting to that level.Current US administration...
Will they be prosecuted now???
Or later???Hmm.
Hmm.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.