Wake up: the American Dream is over

[calm2chaos]

No, you misunderstand..

I used US figures for 1999 here, and then converted them to what it would mean if you used the same definition of Poverty.

US median wage for a single male in 1999 was $40,000

Our definition (UK/EU) would put anyone earning less than $24,000 in the USA as below the poverty line in 1999.

The US definition put anyone earning less than $8,501 as below the poverty line in the USA in 1999. Hell, a family of four needed $17,029 before the State counted them as in "Poverty" in 1999, thats $8,000 less than we would have counted a single person.

I was trying to explain that looking at something that says "so many % in such and such a country live in Poverty" doesnt work... as the report from the country concerned (in this case the UK or indeed whatever EU country you were looking at as we all use the same formula) has a different definition for the word to that your used to.

If the same definition was used, as an example ours, then there would be a huge increase in "Poverty" in the USA.

Likewise if we used the US definition, there would be a huge drop in the UK/EU numbers.

I'm not suggesting one way of calculating is better than the other (although obviously i prefer ours, it helps in our pay negotiations ) ... however it does stop us trying to make a direct comparison.

As to your Health... you said it yourself.

"For anyone that qualifies for them".

Many of the ones that really need it, havent got access for various reasons, whether it be because they have no permanent address (as they cant afford rent), or they cant wait for the (depending upon where you are) weeks of processing to try and qualify. This gives an illusion.. the ones that can just about manage (quite poor) can get stuff, but the ones that have nothing (poor), get nothing... again, this depends upon where you live.

I've said it before and i'll say it again... it's Ironic.

The US Government spends between 1.5X - 2X the GDP of any of the European Countries on Health Care. Thats GDP, not $ per head. As you said, your economy is MORE than 6x our own. In addition to this money, Americans and their employers pay $Billions in Health Insurance.

Yet it will not provide a Universal Health System "Free at the point of use"...

ie: You dont pay $100 to visit a GP or pay Hospital Fees.

The only arguments I've heard against one appear to be based on Geography.. the US population is more widely dispersed.

Yet both Canada and Australia have them, and you cant get much more "widely dispersed" than the Australian Outback I would have thought.

The only reason that i can think of; is that the Health Services, Pharmacutical Companies and Insurance Services like the billions they are conning out of the American People... and the politicians dont want to upset them.

Its pretty sad when you see small countries like Cuba can provide them though....

We'll drop the poverty line then ...LOL

As far as the care. There are walk in clinics were no permenant address is needed. Emergency care can be gotten at any hospital at anytime regaurdless. Regular preventitive (I stubbed my toe) care you can use medicade, medicare etc etc etc. The programs are there. They can be accessed, and they can and are utilized. People are not dying in the streets unless they want to.

UHC.... Not a fan of it tell you the truth. Canada has it and like it or not they have problems. One of the biggest is the immense wait times that can be had for an appointment. It is not uncommon for people coming to the US for care instead of waiting possibly months for an appt. They are from my understanding having a doctors shortage. This is mainly because of the pay. An auto worker with a little OT can make as much as a doctor does. Research. I think you limit Medical R&D with NHC. Why is a drug company or a research lab going to dump 500 million into the development of a new drug if they are'nt going to be able to get there money recouped.

[Rat Faced]

Governments foot most R&D costs through a variety of means.

Just about all BASIC research is funded by Government for example, with companies privately funding applied research. This is because with Basic Research, you dont really know where your going, its an increase in knowledge that is not profitable.

An example of this is the Pharmacutical Companies...

In the USA in 1999, the Pharmacutical Industry "Invested $24 Billion" in research.

Is this a true figure?

It comes through their books, so legally, yes they did..

However, when you consider the lobbying that they did when Congress brought in the Rule re: All Research that was funded by Federal Grants or through other Federal Money should be covered by Freedom of Information, then you must look closer as to how much of this was their own money...

The reason they were kicking up a stink was that all the BASIC research was funded, one way or another, by the taxpayer. They received the money through Grants and then "Invested" it (They also take University Research and extend it, but University Research is generally already Public Domain).

If all this basic research (funded by the taxpayer or through charitable donations) was in the public domain, which is what Congress was demanding, then other compabies could then do applied research on it and find other drugs.. ie: They lose their monopoly.

Im not saying that they dont invest much of their own money, far from it... but it is no where near the $24Billion that the spin suggests.

Basic Research is generally more expensive than "Applied Research", because you dont start the applied research until you're already on the track of something.

To use a very bad example.....

If you're looking for a green die, then Basic Research is throwing everything into a pot to see what colour comes out. When you find "Green", then you start applied research to get just the right shade of green you want.

They dont invest their own money until this point.

All the money they spent however has gone through the books as the money paid by the taxpayer was "received" and "spent" by them... so its included in their "Investment" figures.

The Pharmacutical Industry was upset and was lobbying because Congress was saying: As the taxpayer funded the Research to find "Green", this information should be in the Public Domain. (Not the information on how to get that particular shade of green).



Universal Health: No one is saying that you cant have Private Health Care (I dont know the Canadian System, but that appears to be the case there in practice.. which would be crazy, in my opinion)

For example, both are alive and well in the UK..

If you have no money, then use the NHS... if you dont want to wait, go Private.

The knock on effect is this.... If you're private, then the Insurance Premiums are much lower in the UK than they are in the USA... because the main competition is free. This is merely the Market in practice, thought you approved of that?

John Hopkins University did some research into how well the US Health System works, the results are interesting reading:

Professor Anderson compared cost versus quality of health care as well as outcomes and satisfaction provided by the health care systems in each country. Dr. Anderson found that the U.S. health care system is the most expensive in the world and often lags far behind the rest of the industrialized nations.

The United States spends considerable more on health care that any other industrialized country.

The United States also spends the highest proportion of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) - on health care.

Health insurance premiums in the United States have had double-digit rate increases for four consecutive years, five times greater than both inflation and wage increases.

The U.S. ranked 37th out 191 member states in terms of “overall health system performance” in the World Health Organization’s (WHO) 2000 World Health Report.

The U.S. has the 7th highest infant mortality rate of the 30 most industrialized countries; only Hungary, South Korea, Mexico, Poland, Turkey, and the Slovak Republic perform worse than the U.S.

Both U.S. patients and physicians have substantial levels of dissatisfaction with the quality of the health system.

Source


You'll find that the walk in clinics, as an example, are not placed all over so its a lottery as to whether you can get treatment or not. It depends upon where you live. I would expect, as an example, there would be no problem in New York City... but if your in the upstate area, then it would be a little harder.

[Busyman™]

WTF?

What you propose is to manufacture inflation, then.

Do you also intend to control prices?

We all know how well that works.

Methinks you have supped too sumptuously on Democrat bullshit (to borrow your own phrase).

Do you also propose that, beneath the "minimum" wage, we also create a "sub-minimum" wage?

Has the word "minimum" been redefined?

Perhaps you prefer a wage structure with a false-bottom?

Fact is, if I were forced to raise my bid the 25% it would require to merely accomodate a new minimum wage (never mind any amount I would like in order to hedge inflation, give normal raises, or just stick in my pocket), corporate would decide to forego the services I provide, as they are purchased on an elective basis.

My presence in their "house" is not mandated by any authority; they employ me because they perceive value in excess of the money they pay me to do what I do.

If for whatever reason they feel the cost outstrips the value, I and all my guys are UNEMPLOYED, and that is not "Republican bullshit", it is pure-D fact.

I don't understand this idea that people have considering minimum wage. How can raising minimum wage not effect businesses. If I have 15 employees, and I have to raise the pay a buck fifty, 2 bucks. How do you not think this is going to cause less jobs? If I am a business owner I have to either raise my cost to my customer or reduce my operating expense I.E. Layoffs. If I raise my costs I lose business and am forced to lay off anyway. Is there some special money tree small business are pick from to cover the extra costs?

See here's the thing, in ten frigging years the business has already raised the costs to the consumer. Of course the minimum wage affects business.

It should.

Secondly minimum wage jobs are not careers. They are what they are, and you shouldn't be expected to raise a family or live comfortably from it. It is a bare minimum you can't earn doing something. This is a job or payscale you should have for a minimum amount of time before you move on or move up. If your trying to maintain your family on minimum wage then your problems are not the pay, it's you

Aww fuck. So workers' pay at McDonald's should have stayed frozen at 20 year-ago rates?

....and Congress vote themselves yet another raise.

The fact is business are able to get their workers on the cheap and as time goes on, on the same same cheap. The same argument you raise about having to lay off workers is the same one made by Repubs irregardless to raising/cutting taxes. They tend to leave out the hoarding factor.

As cost of living rises, so should wages. No one is saying they should be in perfect step but again...at about the decade mark it should fucking change by at least a fucking quarter.

[j2k4]

The very idea of a minimum wage sucks donkey balls.

Fact.

Period.

[Busyman™]

The very idea of a minimum wage sucks donkey balls.

Fact.

Period.

Yet it exists and has existed for some time.

[j2k4]

The very idea of a minimum wage sucks donkey balls.

Fact.

Period.

Yet it exists and has existed for some time.

As do all the ill-effects arising from that unfortunate fact.

Fact.

[vidcc]

It does seem that the reality of the data doesn't back the theory.

[100%]

We all have dreams
the logo of the american dream is a fine logo
whomever manages to makes their dream come true
bravo to them

[Rat Faced]

Yet it exists and has existed for some time.

As do all the ill-effects arising from that unfortunate fact.

Fact.

And yet the evidence from the UK and from the Link that vidcc supplied, appear to be at odds with your interpretation of Economic Theory.

You yourself have stated that you don't pay Minimum Wage, and therefore we can make an assumption that you may be a good employer.

However for every good employer there are bad employers... when people need Jobs they must take what they can get. These bad employers are the ones that are making the Gap between Rich and Poor wider and pressurising the Good Employers to pay as little as possible so they can still compete.

They are therefore the ones that are slowly destroying the American Dream that you cherish.

The way around this is to increase the minimum wage, in line with inflation. That way, the competition faces exactly the same rise in costs as yourself. More money is also being spent in the economy, instead of being hoarded by a small number of people, increasing the actual trade.

People can afford small treats, such as going to a Restaurant occasionally or buying little luxuries now and again.

It increases the "Feel Good" factor, increases consumer confidence, so they are more willing to risk borrowing and splashing out.

[Busyman™]

Eliminating the minimum wage would make all Mexican immigrant worker's pay perfectly legal.

Many would just love that.

Also imagine the pay at Wal Mart.

The cost of doing business is the cost of doing business. I can imagine a roll back of wages for fast food chains. I can also imagine more drug dealers.