Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I'm suggesting that the insurance company in both my examples is paying for routine check ups. In one they require you to get those check ups thus their costs for routine check ups are higher than if they are optional but their overall costs are less and people are healthier because they've had those check ups. If that's the case requiring routine check ups is totally justified and it's stupid to oppose them.
Yeah, I get that -- from an insurance company point of view, that may possibly make sense, although I've never seen that confirmed. It's also possible that it's like smoking -- the cheapest thing for the insurance company is to die young and die fast, rather than have 15 or 20 years of old age care. So maybe skipping physicals means you don't catch stuff until you have a month to live instead of years and years of treatment, then you live and have to have followups for the rest of your life.At any rate, from the patient perspective, getting insurance for small expenses that you are going to do anyway is just bad economics.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

What's the difference between a particular gene sequence in an abstract sense and a particular gene sequence that exists within a cell? Can you explain the difference in a way that doesn't boil down

This is pretty funny. The problem isn't the itty bitty details. The problem is Romney refuses to say if he's going to play Poker or Go Fish with the cards, and is on record as saying he doesn't know

I see.   I'd rather give the poor tax breaks than give them welfare. As a general rule. Let them keep their money to live on rather than take their money and then provide for them.

You don't seriously believe there is a difference between "funded by employer" and "funded by employee" except an accounting gimmick, right? Total compensation to the employee remains the same because of competitive pressures.
There absolutely is Henry. 401k's are cheaper for employers. There is no actuary. They can choose to match or not match. All the have to do is make sure they pass the weighting test and file the form 5500. A basic 401K plan can cost the employer as little has $2000 a year TOTAL if there is no matching. For a pension plan it is much much more expensive, and in a pension plan the employer HAS to contribute, along with much higher administrative and actuarial costs.
Link to post
Share on other sites
1. That response makes no sense. Are you asking if the govt is legally bound to pay us back? The answer to that is no. Are you asking if it is pure welfare? That is also no.2. The idea is to let the 98% who would do better reap their rewards, and the tiny percent that would not be able to succeed would basically just have a benefit paid from general revenue. So no, it's not 100% privatized plan, because too many idiots want to be coddled from birth to death.3. Yes, except sustainable.4. Has it ever occurred to you that most people have IRAs and can see the difference between that and SS? This little lie used to work in the old days, but people have experience with personal retirement accounts, so it doesn't work anymore. So yes, most people would prefer to own and direct their own retirement rather than trust it to the likes of Pelosi, Reid, Boehner and Obama.
1.I was referring to the Republican attempts to demonize everything they don't like by using negative language. 2.If 98% actually did better, then we wouldn't have social security. The elderly did far worse before SS was enacted. It's not a matter of being "coddled" but protecting against bad luck/bad decisions/corporate predation. Also, you should never use "idiots" when criticizing SS, since too many shortsighted decisions is one of the main reasons why we should have SS. By "benefit paid from general revenue" you mean welfare? If welfare were an option, then yes, you could consider eliminating SS. But since conservatives are hellbent on eliminating all "welfare" and massively increasing individual risk, then your alternative is not reasonable. 3.It is sustainable with slight adjustments to investment level/benefits. 4.I don't know why you keep persisting in this delusional belief that SS gives you no return. Please provide any justification whatsoever for it. As I've already said multiple times, even the libertarian Cato institute agrees that SS gives BETTER rates of return than any other low risk investment. Also, you significantly overestimate the cost of being forced to invest in SS. Any rational person would use most/all of their SS money to invest in low-risk investments, which would tend to result in no net benefit to them if they were managing their portfolio rather than the government.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I would assume yes as well, but Silent Snow seems to have taken the hblask's comment to mean that people would be required to buy into the stock market.
That is not at all what I am saying. -SS gives better returns than other low risk investments. -Even when adjusting for the worker/retired ratio slightly changing, these returns would still be equal in the future. -If you wanted to beat the returns for SS, you would therefore be forced to invest in stocks or other risky assets.-The risk of the stock market is much higher than most conservatives usually acknowledge.
Link to post
Share on other sites
4. Mandatory self-directed and personally owned investments accounts (in qualifying accounts, similar to mixed mutual fund/bond funds depending on age.
4.Has it ever occurred to you that not everyone wants to gamble their future playing a highly risky and rigged game?
I would assume yes as well, but Silent Snow seems to have taken the hblask's comment to mean that people would be required to buy into the stock market.
That is not at all what I am saying. -SS gives better returns than other low risk investments. -Even when adjusting for the worker/retired ratio slightly changing, these returns would still be equal in the future. -If you wanted to beat the returns for SS, you would therefore be forced to invest in stocks or other risky assets.-The risk of the stock market is much higher than most conservatives usually acknowledge.
I think the discussion is getting confused by whether we're talking about the savings plan aspect of Social Security or the insurance against unplanned events aspect.Speaking strictly of the savings plan aspect (i.e., the government is managing the money but not redistributing it), if "social security" returns better than US savings bonds, where does that wealth come from? If we address the insurance/redistribution aspect, then some people must do better than US savings bonds and some people must do worse than US savings bonds.Wealth doesn't just magically appear.
Link to post
Share on other sites
There absolutely is Henry. 401k's are cheaper for employers. There is no actuary. They can choose to match or not match. All the have to do is make sure they pass the weighting test and file the form 5500. A basic 401K plan can cost the employer as little has $2000 a year TOTAL if there is no matching. For a pension plan it is much much more expensive, and in a pension plan the employer HAS to contribute, along with much higher administrative and actuarial costs.
I think that Henry is saying that if the company uses a 401k it will pay the employees more due to competition from the rival company across the street that offers lower wages today in return for greater retirement benefits.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that Henry is saying that if the company uses a 401k it will pay the employees more due to competition from the rival company across the street that offers lower wages today in return for greater retirement benefits.
Well that is an interesting theory, but I can't think of one example of a company going defined benefit to defined contribution then giving everyone a 10% raise.
Link to post
Share on other sites
There absolutely is Henry. 401k's are cheaper for employers. There is no actuary. They can choose to match or not match. All the have to do is make sure they pass the weighting test and file the form 5500. A basic 401K plan can cost the employer as little has $2000 a year TOTAL if there is no matching. For a pension plan it is much much more expensive, and in a pension plan the employer HAS to contribute, along with much higher administrative and actuarial costs.
But that says one of two things: those cheaper costs are passed on to employees in higher salary or other benefits, or people value the defined contribution plans more. If employees wanted defined benefits plans they would demand much higher salary at places that don't get them, offsetting any gain to the employer.Based on this, it looks like defined contribution plans are much more efficient at giving employees what they want. Sure, everyone wants something for nothing, but when given a real-world choice, people are choosing IRA over traditional pensions.
Link to post
Share on other sites
1.I was referring to the Republican attempts to demonize everything they don't like by using negative language. 2.If 98% actually did better, then we wouldn't have social security. The elderly did far worse before SS was enacted. It's not a matter of being "coddled" but protecting against bad luck/bad decisions/corporate predation. Also, you should never use "idiots" when criticizing SS, since too many shortsighted decisions is one of the main reasons why we should have SS. By "benefit paid from general revenue" you mean welfare? If welfare were an option, then yes, you could consider eliminating SS. But since conservatives are hellbent on eliminating all "welfare" and massively increasing individual risk, then your alternative is not reasonable. 3.It is sustainable with slight adjustments to investment level/benefits. 4.I don't know why you keep persisting in this delusional belief that SS gives you no return. Please provide any justification whatsoever for it. As I've already said multiple times, even the libertarian Cato institute agrees that SS gives BETTER rates of return than any other low risk investment. Also, you significantly overestimate the cost of being forced to invest in SS. Any rational person would use most/all of their SS money to invest in low-risk investments, which would tend to result in no net benefit to them if they were managing their portfolio rather than the government.
1. Why would I care about Republican language? And why would "entitlement" be negative language? Because of their results?2. The elderly did far worse before SS because the country was much poorer. That is the nature of capitalism, to provide higher standards of living over time. Pretending that is due to SS is just silly.3. LOL. "It is sustainable in it's current form as long as we change it's current form." Glad you cleared that up.4. Look up the expected return for people just starting work now. It is a bit irrelevant what the first-in people got; that is the nature of Ponzi schemes that the early adopters can make money. It's the 2nd, 3rd, 4th generations who get screwed. There are calculators online to show what someone who is 20 now can expect, even if there are no changes -- which even you admit must occur.So your final paragraph: you feel it is justified to harm the smart out of fear of what the stupid would do? Uh... nice philosophy you got there.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well that is an interesting theory, but I can't think of one example of a company going defined benefit to defined contribution then giving everyone a 10% raise.
SO why doesn't everyone just to move companies with defined benefit plans? Those companies could get all the top employees in any industry.
Link to post
Share on other sites
But that says one of two things: those cheaper costs are passed on to employees in higher salary or other benefits, or people value the defined contribution plans more. If employees wanted defined benefits plans they would demand much higher salary at places that don't get them, offsetting any gain to the employer.
It's been a long time since people have been able to demand salaries and benefits, so I don't know what you are basing this off.
Based on this, it looks like defined contribution plans are much more efficient at giving employees what they want. Sure, everyone wants something for nothing, but when given a real-world choice, people are choosing IRA over traditional pensions.
What evidence of this do you have? Also, your comparison makes no sense, an IRA is an individual retirement account. A pension is pooled money. So unless you are saying people are choosing to roll their pension to an IRA (which some do if the pension has that option, but their is a break even) your statement doesn't make a lot of sense.To me, the big benefit of IRA's or 401k's is that the money becomes generational, most pensions end at the death of the second spouse, which is the reason they can pay out at a higher rate.
Link to post
Share on other sites
It's been a long time since people have been able to demand salaries and benefits, so I don't know what you are basing this off.
Every time someone switches companies they are demanding salaries and benefits. The move from defined benefit plans started long, long ago, probably in the 80s.
What evidence of this do you have? Also, your comparison makes no sense, an IRA is an individual retirement account. A pension is pooled money. So unless you are saying people are choosing to roll their pension to an IRA (which some do if the pension has that option, but their is a break even) your statement doesn't make a lot of sense.To me, the big benefit of IRA's or 401k's is that the money becomes generational, most pensions end at the death of the second spouse, which is the reason they can pay out at a higher rate.
I'm basing this on the fact the employers have the option of attempting to attract the best employees by using either of these plans, and they've found that IRAs attract employees better.The problem with pensions, besides what you mention here, is that they tend to work best for The Company Man, that long-ago critter that spent their whole life as a servant of a single corporation. People don't work like that now. People tend to work shorter periods at each company, many times for smaller companies, and for that, a self-directed plan is far superior.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Every time someone switches companies they are demanding salaries and benefits.
That's not really true in the real world for most, although I understand what you're saying. Last time I switched jobs, I demanded salary and benefits. Right now, though, I'll take what I can get.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well that is an interesting theory, but I can't think of one example of a company going defined benefit to defined contribution then giving everyone a 10% raise.
I'm only up to this post, but economically speaking, I'm forced to disagree with you here, Guapo. You are correct, but only very short term. The market will adjust long term.
Link to post
Share on other sites
It's been a long time since people have been able to demand salaries and benefits, so I don't know what you are basing this off.
2008 isn't 'a long time'. That's very short term when talking market economics.
Link to post
Share on other sites
People tend to work shorter periods at each company, many times for smaller companies, and for that, a self-directed plan is far superior.
Baby boomers, on average, have changed jobs 11 times since graduating college.
Link to post
Share on other sites
But that says one of two things: those cheaper costs are passed on to employees in higher salary or other benefits, or people value the defined contribution plans more. If employees wanted defined benefits plans they would demand much higher salary at places that don't get them, offsetting any gain to the employer.
Jesus H Christ, you really do live in a wonderland of idealogy... Those 'cheaper costs' are not passed on to employees in the form of higher salary or other benefits. Over the past 30 years, they've been passed on to shareholders, or management salaries- employees have gotten ****ed. income.pngEmployees ability to 'demand' anything is based solely on their ability to organize and bargain collectively. That process has been undermined- under color of law- for quite some time now, not to mention that our economy has shifted heavily to service work, where the replacement cycle for any given employee is significantly lower than it was when we still employed skilled labor. In a capitalist system, management and employers have an enormous, baked-in 'ability' to **** their employees. The health of capitalism in general demands that they don't do that, or else people will start to reject it. History has hashed this out again and again and again and again... This is the path we're currently going down. People like you are quick to trot out hypotheticals about how things could theoretically work to support some grandiose ideology, but for an array of different reasons, will never work in the world we all live in.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Jesus H Christ, you really do live in a wonderland of idealogy... Those 'cheaper costs' are not passed on to employees in the form of higher salary or other benefits. Over the past 30 years, they've been passed on to shareholders, or management salaries- employees have gotten ****ed.
The point was not that 100% of the savings is passed on to employees; the point is that if one company is offering a much, much better deal, they will attract better employees for an equivalent price. So I wasn't making a claim that a certain percent goes to the employee; only that, on average, the total value to the employee of two jobs will tend to equalize. So if the employee felt that pensions were better, the company offering 401K instead would have to offer a higher salary or other benefits to make up for it.This isn't happening, and it's because, all else being equal, people prefer self-directed defined contribution plans to employer-directed defined benefit plans.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The point was not that 100% of the savings is passed on to employees; the point is that if one company is offering a much, much better deal, they will attract better employees for an equivalent price. So I wasn't making a claim that a certain percent goes to the employee; only that, on average, the total value to the employee of two jobs will tend to equalize. So if the employee felt that pensions were better, the company offering 401K instead would have to offer a higher salary or other benefits to make up for it.This isn't happening, and it's because, all else being equal, people prefer self-directed defined contribution plans to employer-directed defined benefit plans.
No, it's not happening because the top 3% holds all the power and the other 88% feel lucky to have jobs.You are operating under this ideological delusion that if Company X offers mediocre benefits, that the really good employees will just go to Company Y with their better benefits package. There is no company Y. Every company knows they can get away with what X does because the rich won the "class war" two decades ago and no one noticed. I think we are down to 7% of private workers that belong to a union now? It is a rare, rare scenario where an employee has leverage on his employer these days.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I wish I could see what that chart is actually trying to illustrate (difference between the whole and the bottom 90%)
Looks to me that it proves that everyone has been rising with the rising economy, even the 'poor'.Of course the rich are going to make the lions share of the increase...they always have throughout history..even in Communist China and Russia. Especially in communist countries...And Cane..your pessimism towards the 'power' of corporations is silly given that your profession has a huge chunk of it making tons of money doing nothing but suing the companies for wrongful terminations, sexual harassment, age discrimination suits, etc. Acting like employees are impotent victims is just false.In fact class action suits are probably more responsible for employees not getting raises than any corporate fat cat trying to squeeze them for a couple more bucks.
Link to post
Share on other sites

GG RomneyFormer President Jimmy Carter says he would be "very pleased" to see Mitt Romney as the GOP presidential nominee -- an endorsement that the former Massachusetts governor hasn't yet embraced as he seeks to win over conservative primary voters

Link to post
Share on other sites

Employment law is a tiny fraction of the legal practice and those corporations have lawyers too. Your actual knowledge of the profession is limited to jokes.And these nonsense arguments about lawsuits being to blame is ridiculous. They say the same thing about medical malpractice and healthcare costs. But Texas enacted the strongest limitations on med MAL in the country last decade and their healthcare costs as a state have accelerated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's raise taxes, by Obama
WASHINGTON (AP) -- In a blunt rejoinder to congressional Republicans, President Barack Obama called for $1.5 trillion in new taxes Monday, part of a total 10-year deficit reduction package totaling more than $3 trillion. "We can't just cut our way out of this hole," the president said.The president's proposal would predominantly hit upper income taxpayers but would also reduce spending in mandatory benefit programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, by $580 billion. It also counts savings of $1 trillion over 10 years from the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.The core of the president's plan totals just over $2 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years. It would let Bush-era tax cuts for upper income earners expire, limit deductions for wealthier filers and close loopholes and end some corporate tax breaks. It also would cut $580 billion from mandatory programs, including $248 billion from Medicare. It also targets subsidies to farmers and benefits programs for federal employees.Under Obama's plan, government spending would no longer add to the national debt starting in 2017
So let's put a plan in that will take 6 years to get to a balanced budget (as long as no other budgets are introduced by any other presidents including Obama next year ) and cut medicare to help pay for the $500million loss given to the Obama supporters via Solyndra.For every $3 in tax increases...there is only $1 in spending cuts
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...