New Study Confirms That American Workers Are Getting Ripped Off

[laughing dog]

Your belief that the profit motive can blindly make better healthcare decisions than doctors make is, frankly, quite insane.

Until about 25 years ago, the Mayo Clinic would only send a bill out twice. If they did not receive payment by the 2nd billing, they assumed the client was unable to pay and Mayo deemed that account closed. They quit because Mayo rightly feared that insurance carriers would demand the same consideration.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Apparently you misunderstood.

Their report basically said that UHC is better because UHC is better. They just prettied it up with a supposed scoring of the merits of the various systems--but one of the five factors was "fairness"--in effect, whether they had UHC. Either they're too stupid to be playing with statistics in the first place, or they're not honest enough to be playing with them. Either way, don't bother.

Are you saying that coverage that applies to every citizen of a UHC country should not be counted as a good thing?

Can't you see the circular reasoning problem? Their report basically says UHC is good because UHC is good.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If worker productivity has increased by 500% in X years but worker standard of living has only increased by 100% in the same time that still means workers are being ripped off.

Lets look at those numbers because that's pretty close to what I saw at my previous job.

Except for the little detail of whether they were being ripped off. It's not that the workers were working any harder. (If anything, I think the reverse was true as many jobs changed from actually doing work to assisting the machine doing the work.) Rather, that 500% increase was due to automation. Millions of dollars worth of machinery, I think 4 of us on staff whose job was building stuff we couldn't simply buy (And plenty of tools for us, also.) (I'm not sure of the exact number because as a purely software guy I had basically zero contact with the purely machinery guys.)

So you are okay with 4/5 of all the benefits of automation going to padding the CEO's/shareholders' pockets instead of the workers' and there is no way that we could ever call that a bad deal?

Do you think the CEOs are working harder now than they did in a previous era? Guess what. Their job has probably gotten easier with technology too. Making good decisions is easier when you have more pertinent information.

The workers contributed nothing to that automation, why should they reap the benefits? (Those of us involved in making the automation already got paychecks for doing so.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The OECD has rigged the results before. (Their evaluation of UHC as superior uses a fudge factor of having UHC is 20% of the score.) Fool me twice, shame on me.

I take it that you have a competing study that proves the opposite, that American workers have never had it so good, that the institutions and the very structure of our economy are so biased against the bosses and the shareholders that they are barely getting by. If so please present it and we will read it and be able to judge your objection to this study. Otherwise, we will just have to write this off as another comfortable lie that you have to believe to justify your fantasy of how the economy works.

I don't know what the true situation is. It's just I trust the OECD reports about as far as I can throw their headquarters.

You are one of many neoliberals here who have a lot of memorized, single sentence responses to anything that challenges your most closely held beliefs. Surprise me and prove me wrong. Present your evidence that this study is flawed.

They have proven they'll cheat to make a report say what they want it to say. Thus them publishing a report that says what they want to say is of no value, there's nothing here to rebut.

I find it to be not very damning that the OECD considers it to be important whether or not a nation is trying to provide healthcare to all of their citizens or if they are are trying to run their healthcare as a profit-making business and thereby dramatically increasing medical costs and pricing the poor out of the system as you neoliberals want to do. Your belief that the profit motive can blindly make better healthcare decisions than doctors make is, frankly, quite insane.

I find it very damning when the objective is to show a better outcome.

And I'm not saying profit motive can make better healthcare decisions. My problem with UHC is that the same people define proper and pay for it. It's so much easier to lower standards than actually do it right, especially when you shield the system from any real accountability for wrongdoing.

 

[ZiprHead]

Apparently you misunderstood.

Their report basically said that UHC is better because UHC is better. They just prettied it up with a supposed scoring of the merits of the various systems--but one of the five factors was "fairness"--in effect, whether they had UHC. Either they're too stupid to be playing with statistics in the first place, or they're not honest enough to be playing with them. Either way, don't bother.

Are you saying that coverage that applies to every citizen of a UHC country should not be counted as a good thing?

Can't you see the circular reasoning problem? Their report basically says UHC is good because UHC is good.

Frankly you dodged the question.

And in your example, UHC is only 20 percent good.

 

[zorq]

So you are okay with 4/5 of all the benefits of automation going to padding the CEO's/shareholders' pockets instead of the workers' and there is no way that we could ever call that a bad deal?

Do you think the CEOs are working harder now than they did in a previous era? Guess what. Their job has probably gotten easier with technology too. Making good decisions is easier when you have more pertinent information.

The workers contributed nothing to that automation, why should they reap the benefits? (Those of us involved in making the automation already got paychecks for doing so.)

The workers had to be retrained to use the new technology and learn or get fired. The CEOs didn't contribute anything to the automation except for the one time decision to adopt and maintain it.

Why should they reap all the benefits? Seriously? The Managers are working every week as always and the workers are working every week as always. But you think that for some reason that something critical has changed and now the managers deserve a bigger cut... but you can't give me a good reason why.

The company dies without the workers. The company dies without the managers. They are both STILL necessary. Why do the managers deserve a bigger cut now than they got 50 years ago? You keep giving me bad answers. Please try again or (maybe) reconsider your position.

 

[Underseer]

The Romans figured out that they could keep the population from revolting with bread and circuses.

Republicans seem to think they can do it without the bread part.

Eventually, there will be enough hungry people that nothing can prevent a revolt. The rage of Republican voters that resulted in Trump winning the primary is just a taste of the madness to come.

America rebelled from the British because the British forgot that you need to make like better for those you rule if you want to continue to rule them. The economic elites worshiped by conservatives and libertarians seem to have forgotten that lesson.

 

[bilby]

Apparently you misunderstood.

Their report basically said that UHC is better because UHC is better. They just prettied it up with a supposed scoring of the merits of the various systems--but one of the five factors was "fairness"--in effect, whether they had UHC. Either they're too stupid to be playing with statistics in the first place, or they're not honest enough to be playing with them. Either way, don't bother.

Are you saying that coverage that applies to every citizen of a UHC country should not be counted as a good thing?

Can't you see the circular reasoning problem? Their report basically says UHC is good because UHC is good.

No, it correctly says that UHC is good because it has the fewest instances of patients being denied treatment. A system with the tip-top, you beaut, super fantastic, best care in the world, but which only covers one person, while millions get no treatment (or sub-standard treatment) is inherently less good than a system that has a decent standard of care for all patients. There is a clear spectrum from 'worse' to 'better' that maps neatly to the spectrum from 'nobody is covered' to 'everybody is covered'.

Patients are NOT customers. People do not get sick or injured because they are wealthy and feel like a nice expensive vacation in a hospital bed; And they cannot decide not to become sick or injured until the next paycheck, because they are too poor to afford treatment.

Any system that treats those in need is better than one that treats only a subset of those in need. UHC is good, because when it comes to the provision of medical services, universality is good. It's not circular reasoning; It's expanding upon the meaning of the acronym. If 20% of people in system A are uninsured, and 0% of people in system B are uninsured, then "System B is better than system A" is a true statement not derived from circular reasoning; and "System B is UHC while system A is not" is a true statement derived from the definition of the word 'Universal', and "UHC is better than non-universal systems" is synonymous with "System B is better than system A", and is therefore ALSO a true statement not derived from circular reasoning.

If your system has some residents who are not able to get health care, then it is not as good as a system in which all residents are able to get health care. That this obvious fact is somehow controversial to you and to many other Americans, is a searing indictment of peoples ability to be persuaded of falsehoods by propagandists.

 

[RVonse]

The system is free market capitalism. The economy is driven by profit and return on investments, period. Jobs and rising standards of living are side effects. Wages and labor demand vary with supply and demand.

You will have to elaborate on what you mean by ripped off. Of course there are systemic inequities.

What does the typical American worker have today compared to 50 years ago? Computers, multiplr family cars, a motorcycle, wireless devices and so on. The medical technology available today was unheard of in the 50s.

In 1950s buying power middle class was a small house, a car, washer, dryer, black and white TV, and a two week vacation. The variety of goods people can afford today was unthinkable in the 50s. The food 24/7 in supermarkets is staggering in context.

Workers are getting ripped off...yea tea yea. Get out your Castro beret and man the barricades.

Some "typical" American workers now have a tent or cardboard box under the freeway on ramp, and a shady place to take a dump. Our economy for working people is virtually in the toilet. Let's stop bullshitting ourselves. We are in a terrible fix and we have last years rotting Holloween pumpkin guiding our Titanic nation on its merry way.

This is the kind of thinking that gave us Trump.

Hopefully a step in the right direction. So far it appears to be working that way anyway.

 

[RVonse]

So you are okay with 4/5 of all the benefits of automation going to padding the CEO's/shareholders' pockets instead of the workers' and there is no way that we could ever call that a bad deal?

Do you think the CEOs are working harder now than they did in a previous era? Guess what. Their job has probably gotten easier with technology too. Making good decisions is easier when you have more pertinent information.

The workers contributed nothing to that automation, why should they reap the benefits? (Those of us involved in making the automation already got paychecks for doing so.)

This is a fair question that really deserves more thought. Regardless of which side you are on.

Yes, the producers deserve more rewards for being smart and working hard. No argument there. But should they endlessly be rewarded all the additional productivity surpluses to the end of time?

 

[RVonse]

The workers contributed nothing to that automation, why should they reap the benefits? (Those of us involved in making the automation already got paychecks for doing so.)

Then you didn't deserve a paycheck either because Henry Ford's relatives should be still getting the credit for assembly automation. It wasnt your idea in the first place. Your contribution did not count.

 

[untermensche]

The system is free market capitalism. The economy is driven by profit and return on investments, period...

In fantasyland.

The system is government supported corporatism.

Where defense contractors and investment bankers and oil executives control the government.

So we end up with a "drug war" and for-profit prisons.

And endless war. With mercenary armies.

And no way to stop the insanity that is destroying the environment.

Things are going to get very ugly for humanity when oil supplies start dwindling and prices skyrocket.

Most likely billions will starve to death before some other energy system is devised and local farms supplying food locally are reestablished.

 

[untermensche]

So you are okay with 4/5 of all the benefits of automation going to padding the CEO's/shareholders' pockets instead of the workers' and there is no way that we could ever call that a bad deal?

Do you think the CEOs are working harder now than they did in a previous era? Guess what. Their job has probably gotten easier with technology too. Making good decisions is easier when you have more pertinent information.

The workers contributed nothing to that automation, why should they reap the benefits? (Those of us involved in making the automation already got paychecks for doing so.)

The money taken from workers paid for all automation.

That is what profit is.

Money taken from the labor that earned it.

 

[Harry Bosch]

So you are okay with 4/5 of all the benefits of automation going to padding the CEO's/shareholders' pockets instead of the workers' and there is no way that we could ever call that a bad deal?

Do you think the CEOs are working harder now than they did in a previous era? Guess what. Their job has probably gotten easier with technology too. Making good decisions is easier when you have more pertinent information.

The workers contributed nothing to that automation, why should they reap the benefits? (Those of us involved in making the automation already got paychecks for doing so.)

The money taken from workers paid for all automation.

That is what profit is.

Money taken from the labor that earned it.

What is this law that gives workers the right to all profit?

 

[untermensche]

The money taken from workers paid for all automation.

That is what profit is.

Money taken from the labor that earned it.

What is this law that gives workers the right to all profit?

Labor has a right to what it produces.

That is simply basic fairness.

But of course top down dictatorial control in a system makes any talk of fairness a joke.

And of course many support the arguments put forth by dictators.

Many are fully in support of dictators and look after the needs of dictators.

Just as many looked after the needs of Kings and Popes.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So you are okay with 4/5 of all the benefits of automation going to padding the CEO's/shareholders' pockets instead of the workers' and there is no way that we could ever call that a bad deal?

Do you think the CEOs are working harder now than they did in a previous era? Guess what. Their job has probably gotten easier with technology too. Making good decisions is easier when you have more pertinent information.

The workers contributed nothing to that automation, why should they reap the benefits? (Those of us involved in making the automation already got paychecks for doing so.)

The workers had to be retrained to use the new technology and learn or get fired. The CEOs didn't contribute anything to the automation except for the one time decision to adopt and maintain it.

1) In the example I gave the CEO most definitely was involved. He was also the majority owner, if it worked he pocketed the profit, if it didn't it came out of the profit he would otherwise make.

2) I do not believe anybody got replaced due to our automation. We taught the people doing the job how to do it with the assistance of the automation. The only effect it had on jobs was that we didn't hire as many people as we grew.

Why should they reap all the benefits? Seriously? The Managers are working every week as always and the workers are working every week as always. But you think that for some reason that something critical has changed and now the managers deserve a bigger cut... but you can't give me a good reason why.

Huh? I said nothing about the managers. It's the owner's money, the owner gets the benefit or takes the loss.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Can't you see the circular reasoning problem? Their report basically says UHC is good because UHC is good.

No, it correctly says that UHC is good because it has the fewest instances of patients being denied treatment.

No, that's a separate thing. I'm talking about their including fairness of funding it.

A system with the tip-top, you beaut, super fantastic, best care in the world, but which only covers one person, while millions get no treatment (or sub-standard treatment) is inherently less good than a system that has a decent standard of care for all patients. There is a clear spectrum from 'worse' to 'better' that maps neatly to the spectrum from 'nobody is covered' to 'everybody is covered'.

And UHC seems to have a lot more substandard treatment.

If your system has some residents who are not able to get health care, then it is not as good as a system in which all residents are able to get health care. That this obvious fact is somehow controversial to you and to many other Americans, is a searing indictment of peoples ability to be persuaded of falsehoods by propagandists.

Plenty of people in UHC countries can't get adequate care. It's just the limit is availability rather than payment.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So you are okay with 4/5 of all the benefits of automation going to padding the CEO's/shareholders' pockets instead of the workers' and there is no way that we could ever call that a bad deal?

Do you think the CEOs are working harder now than they did in a previous era? Guess what. Their job has probably gotten easier with technology too. Making good decisions is easier when you have more pertinent information.

The workers contributed nothing to that automation, why should they reap the benefits? (Those of us involved in making the automation already got paychecks for doing so.)

This is a fair question that really deserves more thought. Regardless of which side you are on.

Yes, the producers deserve more rewards for being smart and working hard. No argument there. But should they endlessly be rewarded all the additional productivity surpluses to the end of time?

The benefits of productivity should go to those who produce.

Note that machines are a source of production, the productivity from them goes to the owner of the machines.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The money taken from workers paid for all automation.

That is what profit is.

Money taken from the labor that earned it.

What is this law that gives workers the right to all profit?

Labor has a right to what it produces.

That is simply basic fairness.

But of course top down dictatorial control in a system makes any talk of fairness a joke.

And of course many support the arguments put forth by dictators.

Many are fully in support of dictators and look after the needs of dictators.

Just as many looked after the needs of Kings and Popes.

So the owners get no value from what they provide. Why should they provide anything?

 

[Jarhyn]

Labor has a right to what it produces.

That is simply basic fairness.

But of course top down dictatorial control in a system makes any talk of fairness a joke.

And of course many support the arguments put forth by dictators.

Many are fully in support of dictators and look after the needs of dictators.

Just as many looked after the needs of Kings and Popes.

So the owners get no value from what they provide. Why should they provide anything?

The owners *don't* provide anything. That's the whole problem. On a small individual scale, owning something means having spent years contributing to society to provide proof that you deserve some share of societal resource: land, or food, or water, or service. When someone on such individual scales die, their contribution turns mostly into "learning money" for their kids, maybe some debt relief, and possibly some valued heirlooms coming down.

The owners of a company, though, generally don't continue to contribute for said ownership. They don't continue to work, and oftentimes their ownership comes through merely "buying" a historic investment someone else made. That's the problem many of us have with the system: historic contributions never time out.