Scott Walker says denying poor people health care coverage helps them "truly live the America dream"

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why do we hold employers responsible for the health and welfare of those they hire to perform work? This comes up in both minimum wage discussions and health insurance discussions. Employers generally control neither your cost of living nor your general health.

 

[arkirk]

Why do we hold employers responsible for the health and welfare of those they hire to perform work? This comes up in both minimum wage discussions and health insurance discussions. Employers generally control neither your cost of living nor your general health.

In general, any business is in the business of skimming profits from all that passes through its hands...if possible. When unions were on the rise, employers sought the cheapest possible deal they could make with their workers and there was no very little interest in public health funded by government. The solution major employers came up with was benefit packages that eluded taxation and health plans fit neatly into that formula...especially when they offered only the scantiest of coverage and medical technology was nowhere near as expensive as it is today. For awhile, the untaxed benefit idea was the most economical to the employer and the employer enjoyed the benefit of ECONOMY OF SCALE for plans of modest cost to them. This was all relative to paying the employees sufficiently to actually buy the medical services they needed themselves. Medicine was at that time more a profession than a business and employers enjoyed all the advantages.

Over time, medical technology became a lot more sophisticated and expensive and there were other BUSINESSES (profit skimming entities) that insinuated themselves in the healthcare scenario. The profits of these new businesses eventually exceeded the savings employers enjoyed in taxation from offering a health benefit. The result was shrinkage of coverage in the plans employers offered their employees and difficulties in paying for even these plans, expanded co-pays, and simply dropping the plans altogether for some.

Large employers are against single payer because they know there is only one source for the actual funding whether the employee pays or not. That source is THEIR PROFITS. It really would not matter if the employer paid or if the employee paid if the costs were reasonable. It really would not matter also if the plan were operated by the government either. Medical insurance companies, hospitals, medical equipment manufacturers, and big pharma are playing employers against employees and their unions and winning on all counts, jacking medical expense totally out of sight for employers, employees, and the government.

The answer is that government must intervene and make medical care for our population a reality without destroying other aspects of our economy. I believe at this time, that can only be done by instituting some sort of single payer system. This system would have to be fully empowered to bargain for fair pricing of all services offered to patients. This is a gargantuan task and appears to be beyond reach because of all the economic factions keeping our society from coming together on a concept of universal care for all citizens.

The fact is that the bottom line is medical services and preventive care need to be addressed on a non profit basis, with adequate compensation for all in the activity, and clear regulations that deny nobody medical care and set standards for medical care. That would be the civilized way of dealing with the "problem" of medical care. This means the entire shooting match called "medical" needs to be addressed in its totality and be reorganized, regardless of things such as patents, investment portfolios, etc. etc. This will be the eventual outcome if our society manages to survive at some point. It is really very similar to getting opposing factions to deal with getting off petroleum. This too is on its way, if we manage to survive that long.

 

[ZiprHead]

Incorrect. Even if you are not working full time, if you get paid more for the hours you do work, then you are making more and therefor your situation is at least a little bit better. If you don't have a job, then you are not making an hourly wage anyway, and a raise of the minimum wage will not affect you either way.

The problem is that you'll end up cutting the hours worked. Some will benefit, some will really get hurt.

Employers are keeping people on the clock out of the goodness of their hearts? If there is 30 hrs of work needed to be done, are employers keeping people on the job for 35 hrs?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem is that you'll end up cutting the hours worked. Some will benefit, some will really get hurt.

They will only cut the hours worked if they can, and with the companies we are talking about (those that typically offer minimum wage), if they could cut those hours they already would have done so. They don't suddenly need workers to work less hours for no reason, and they are not about to let any minimum wage workers work more hours than they need them to work, regardless of the minimum wage they are forced to pay. Simply put, your words sound great to anti-minimum wage raising ideologues, but when examined closely they do not hold water.

Keeping asserting that employers can't cut hours doesn't make it so.

They can choose to eliminate/cut back in areas they no longer consider profitable at the new labor rates.

 

[KeepTalking]

They will only cut the hours worked if they can, and with the companies we are talking about (those that typically offer minimum wage), if they could cut those hours they already would have done so. They don't suddenly need workers to work less hours for no reason, and they are not about to let any minimum wage workers work more hours than they need them to work, regardless of the minimum wage they are forced to pay. Simply put, your words sound great to anti-minimum wage raising ideologues, but when examined closely they do not hold water.

Keeping asserting that employers can't cut hours doesn't make it so.

Continuing to assert that raising the minimum wage by any amount will force businesses to cut back on hours does not make it so. In other words, "right back atcha'."

They can choose to eliminate/cut back in areas they no longer consider profitable at the new labor rates.

You are assuming that raising the minimum wage by any amount will make that labor no longer profitable. Any business with that slim of a profit margin will not be in business long, regardless of whether the minimum wage is raised, or not.

 

[Jarhyn]

Keeping asserting that employers can't cut hours doesn't make it so.

Continuing to assert that raising the minimum wage by any amount will force businesses to cut back on hours does not make it so. In other words, "right back atcha'."

They can choose to eliminate/cut back in areas they no longer consider profitable at the new labor rates.

You are assuming that raising the minimum wage by any amount will make that labor no longer profitable. Any business with that slim of a profit margin will not be in business long, regardless of whether the minimum wage is raised, or not.

I would argue that any such business that would be so harmed should be so harmed. Anything we can't afford to pay people for doing is a thing we can't afford to do.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Keeping asserting that employers can't cut hours doesn't make it so.

Continuing to assert that raising the minimum wage by any amount will force businesses to cut back on hours does not make it so. In other words, "right back atcha'."

They can choose to eliminate/cut back in areas they no longer consider profitable at the new labor rates.

You are assuming that raising the minimum wage by any amount will make that labor no longer profitable. Any business with that slim of a profit margin will not be in business long, regardless of whether the minimum wage is raised, or not.

Basic economics says it's so. Your side never refutes this, just claims that business can't cut back on hours.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Basic economics says it's so.

I believe anytime anyone says "basic economics" or "Econ 101" they automatically lose the argument.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Basic economics says it's so.

I believe anytime anyone says "basic economics" or "Econ 101" they automatically lose the argument.

Yeah, what you want denies basic economics so you have to consider it wrong.

If it really was why hasn't someone shown the problem?

 

[laughing dog]

I believe anytime anyone says "basic economics" or "Econ 101" they automatically lose the argument.

Yeah, what you want denies basic economics so you have to consider it wrong.

It could be the case it is usually the case that when someone says "basic economics" they are either misusing "basic economics" or actually don't know "basic" economics. the

If it really was why hasn't someone shown the problem?

The actual effect of a change in the minimum wage is an empirical not theoretical exercise. The outcome depends on a multitude of factors. The claim that raising the minimum wage necessarily reduces the employment of labor is pure handwaving. While it is true that all other things equal, an increase in the minimum wage will reduce hours worked when the demand for labor is not perfectly inelastic, in the real world, the all other things equal part is not usually valid.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yeah, what you want denies basic economics so you have to consider it wrong.

It could be the case it is usually the case that when someone says "basic economics" they are either misusing "basic economics" or actually don't know "basic" economics. the

If it really was why hasn't someone shown the problem?

The actual effect of a change in the minimum wage is an empirical not theoretical exercise. The outcome depends on a multitude of factors. The claim that raising the minimum wage necessarily reduces the employment of labor is pure handwaving. While it is true that all other things equal, an increase in the minimum wage will reduce hours worked when the demand for labor is not perfectly inelastic, in the real world, the all other things equal part is not usually valid.

All the research amounts to showing that you can't see a small signal (remember, at least in the past only 1% of the population works for minimum wage) in a noisy environment. (If 10% of minimum wage workers lose their job it only raises the unemployment rate by .1%--the smallest amount we even measure.)

 

[Jarhyn]

Loren, it comes down to a fundamental axiomatic conflict. Us on the left of this issue think that if you occupy a person's 40 hours through your employment of them, either through full time or through 'preferred scheduling priority', then you are responsible to do everything to maintain that resource you need, and keep it in good working order. If you cannot afford to do that, then boo on you.

 

[KeepTalking]

Continuing to assert that raising the minimum wage by any amount will force businesses to cut back on hours does not make it so. In other words, "right back atcha'."

They can choose to eliminate/cut back in areas they no longer consider profitable at the new labor rates.

You are assuming that raising the minimum wage by any amount will make that labor no longer profitable. Any business with that slim of a profit margin will not be in business long, regardless of whether the minimum wage is raised, or not.

Basic economics says it's so. Your side never refutes this, just claims that business can't cut back on hours.

I never said a business can't cut back on hours. My point is that any business that is so unprofitable that a small raise in the wage of their lowest paid employees will affect their profits to the point that they will necessarily have to cut back on those employees hours is not profitable enough to remain in business to begin with. If they can cut back on hours and keep a good level of profitability, they are going to do that regardless of whether or not the minimum wage is raised. Then the executives are going to to pat each other on the back for cutting hours, and give themselves raises to compensate for it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Loren, it comes down to a fundamental axiomatic conflict. Us on the left of this issue think that if you occupy a person's 40 hours through your employment of them, either through full time or through 'preferred scheduling priority', then you are responsible to do everything to maintain that resource you need, and keep it in good working order. If you cannot afford to do that, then boo on you.

The problem is that you are assuming there must be a good outcome.

The reality of your position is a lot more people with no job--and I consider a poor job to be superior to no job.

- - - Updated - - -

Continuing to assert that raising the minimum wage by any amount will force businesses to cut back on hours does not make it so. In other words, "right back atcha'."

They can choose to eliminate/cut back in areas they no longer consider profitable at the new labor rates.

You are assuming that raising the minimum wage by any amount will make that labor no longer profitable. Any business with that slim of a profit margin will not be in business long, regardless of whether the minimum wage is raised, or not.

Basic economics says it's so. Your side never refutes this, just claims that business can't cut back on hours.

I never said a business can't cut back on hours. My point is that any business that is so unprofitable that a small raise in the wage of their lowest paid employees will affect their profits to the point that they will necessarily have to cut back on those employees hours is not profitable enough to remain in business to begin with. If they can cut back on hours and keep a good level of profitability, they are going to do that regardless of whether or not the minimum wage is raised. Then the executives are going to to pat each other on the back for cutting hours, and give themselves raises to compensate for it.

So businesses are slaves that you can extract as much as you want from so long as you don't kill them????

What your side continues to miss is that there's always a range of things they do, some more profitable, some less. When you drive some of those tasks into negative profitability they'll get dropped.

 

[arkirk]

The problem is that you are assuming there must be a good outcome.

The reality of your position is a lot more people with no job--and I consider a poor job to be superior to no job.

- - - Updated - - -

Continuing to assert that raising the minimum wage by any amount will force businesses to cut back on hours does not make it so. In other words, "right back atcha'."

They can choose to eliminate/cut back in areas they no longer consider profitable at the new labor rates.

You are assuming that raising the minimum wage by any amount will make that labor no longer profitable. Any business with that slim of a profit margin will not be in business long, regardless of whether the minimum wage is raised, or not.

Basic economics says it's so. Your side never refutes this, just claims that business can't cut back on hours.

I never said a business can't cut back on hours. My point is that any business that is so unprofitable that a small raise in the wage of their lowest paid employees will affect their profits to the point that they will necessarily have to cut back on those employees hours is not profitable enough to remain in business to begin with. If they can cut back on hours and keep a good level of profitability, they are going to do that regardless of whether or not the minimum wage is raised. Then the executives are going to to pat each other on the back for cutting hours, and give themselves raises to compensate for it.

So businesses are slaves that you can extract as much as you want from so long as you don't kill them????

What your side continues to miss is that there's always a range of things they do, some more profitable, some less. When you drive some of those tasks into negative profitability they'll get dropped.

According to my understanding of what you are saying is that businesses are apart from society and unbeholden to the society they parasitically profit from. Is that your side? We are all in this world together, Loren. You and Walker are always at war with only the people you think cannot fight back. We never hear anything from you that may ameliorate the difficulties of those less fortunate than yourself. All we hear is that they are un-redeemable losers who are dragging down "society." It is as if the problems of society at large is NOT YOUR PROBLEM. Walker is a prime example of that kind of thinking. You guys ought to get along well together...outside of society....beyond any civil control. You have a mechanistic and uncreative view of human commerce with authoritarian and capitalistic rules you think must be held inviolate. Man may not be able to control nature...but according to you he stands absolutely no chance of controlling himself...especially if he is poor and a permanent "loser." According to you, any man who becomes poor is not worthy of further thought and his problems don't matter at all. So rigid is your thinking you cannot even discuss social controls on the rich.

 

[RavenSky]

Basic economics says it's so. Your side never refutes this, just claims that business can't cut back on hours.

They don't need to refute a super simplified textbook model because that is all it is... a super simplified textbook model used to teach Econ-101.

KeepTalking is commenting about the real world, a more nuanced situation that appears to be beyond your beginner's understanding of economics.

 

[KeepTalking]

The problem is that you are assuming there must be a good outcome.

The reality of your position is a lot more people with no job--and I consider a poor job to be superior to no job.

- - - Updated - - -

Continuing to assert that raising the minimum wage by any amount will force businesses to cut back on hours does not make it so. In other words, "right back atcha'."

They can choose to eliminate/cut back in areas they no longer consider profitable at the new labor rates.

You are assuming that raising the minimum wage by any amount will make that labor no longer profitable. Any business with that slim of a profit margin will not be in business long, regardless of whether the minimum wage is raised, or not.

Basic economics says it's so. Your side never refutes this, just claims that business can't cut back on hours.

I never said a business can't cut back on hours. My point is that any business that is so unprofitable that a small raise in the wage of their lowest paid employees will affect their profits to the point that they will necessarily have to cut back on those employees hours is not profitable enough to remain in business to begin with. If they can cut back on hours and keep a good level of profitability, they are going to do that regardless of whether or not the minimum wage is raised. Then the executives are going to to pat each other on the back for cutting hours, and give themselves raises to compensate for it.

So businesses are slaves that you can extract as much as you want from so long as you don't kill them????

No, businesses are not slaves, and they cannot be killed, because they are not people. The people working for them are people, but your side apparently wants some of them to work like they are slaves for wages that they cannot live on, and remove any social safety net, effectively killing them for the sake of profit.

What your side continues to miss is that there's always a range of things they do, some more profitable, some less. When you drive some of those tasks into negative profitability they'll get dropped.

What your side fails to understand is that raising the wages of the lowest paid employees of a business to an amount that keeps them out of poverty is not what drives the business to negative profitability. More likely it is the decisions made by the highest paid executives that causes businesses to fail, but they are rewarded for it with golden parachutes that allow them to loot the business for all it is worth before moving on to another business and repeating the process.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

What your side fails to understand is that raising the wages of the lowest paid employees of a business to an amount that keeps them out of poverty is not what drives the business to negative profitability. More likely it is the decisions made by the highest paid executives that causes businesses to fail, but they are rewarded for it with golden parachutes that allow them to loot the business for all it is worth before moving on to another business and repeating the process.

Not only that, but sometimes a parent company will drive a subsidiary out of business to boost the parent company stocks and bonuses of executives.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

According to my understanding of what you are saying is that businesses are apart from society and unbeholden to the society they parasitically profit from. Is that your side? We are all in this world together, Loren. You and Walker are always at war with only the people you think cannot fight back. We never hear anything from you that may ameliorate the difficulties of those less fortunate than yourself. All we hear is that they are un-redeemable losers who are dragging down "society." It is as if the problems of society at large is NOT YOUR PROBLEM. Walker is a prime example of that kind of thinking. You guys ought to get along well together...outside of society....beyond any civil control. You have a mechanistic and uncreative view of human commerce with authoritarian and capitalistic rules you think must be held inviolate. Man may not be able to control nature...but according to you he stands absolutely no chance of controlling himself...especially if he is poor and a permanent "loser." According to you, any man who becomes poor is not worthy of further thought and his problems don't matter at all. So rigid is your thinking you cannot even discuss social controls on the rich.

You aren't addressing the issue at all, just resorting to personal attacks. You are in effect conceding that I am right.

- - - Updated - - -

Basic economics says it's so. Your side never refutes this, just claims that business can't cut back on hours.

They don't need to refute a super simplified textbook model because that is all it is... a super simplified textbook model used to teach Econ-101.

KeepTalking is commenting about the real world, a more nuanced situation that appears to be beyond your beginner's understanding of economics.

Nobody has even tried to address the fact that businesses aren't monolithic, there are always a variety of things they do with various levels of return.

- - - Updated - - -

What your side fails to understand is that raising the wages of the lowest paid employees of a business to an amount that keeps them out of poverty is not what drives the business to negative profitability. More likely it is the decisions made by the highest paid executives that causes businesses to fail, but they are rewarded for it with golden parachutes that allow them to loot the business for all it is worth before moving on to another business and repeating the process.

And what you are missing is that all too often it amounts to "raising" those wages to $0/hr. You're treating the business world as a static thing that will not react to changed conditions.

 

[KeepTalking]

What your side fails to understand is that raising the wages of the lowest paid employees of a business to an amount that keeps them out of poverty is not what drives the business to negative profitability. More likely it is the decisions made by the highest paid executives that causes businesses to fail, but they are rewarded for it with golden parachutes that allow them to loot the business for all it is worth before moving on to another business and repeating the process.

And what you are missing is that all too often it amounts to "raising" those wages to $0/hr.

I guess I am missing it, because that is the exact opposite of a raise.

You know what, though? We can bring this out of the realm of economic theory, and into the real world if you would just give us one example of a business that was forced to close solely because of a raise in the minimum wage.

The ball is in your court, Loren.