|
The end result of all this is that those white middle-upper class professionals won't have anyone to take care of them in their old age since their children will be too busy and poor to support them. This ends in tragedy for all involved.
|
# ? Jan 1, 2017 01:32 |
|
|
# ? May 9, 2024 10:15 |
|
Helsing posted:In fact Obama himself has been pretty candid about this at times and described himself as espousing ideas that would have placed him in the Republican party a couple decades ago. It's in his book even.
|
# ? Jan 1, 2017 01:37 |
|
Helsing posted:And then he was forced to push through a bunch of awful trade deals that effectively give corporate tribunals a veto over national legislation. Helsing posted:Sure almost the entire labour movement was united against the bill but I trust that the President had their best interests at heart. Helsing posted:And hey, he slightly raised marignal tax rates. I mean sure he was trying to cut social security and he forced everyone to buy crapified insurance that in many cases had co-pays so high that people were still filing for bankruptcy when they got ill but you have to understand that passing a bill modeled on a plan from a conservative Republican think tank was actually a historic success. Helsing posted:I mean, sure, the entire system has gone into a death spiral of withdrawing companies and rising premiums but no, I don't think that had anything to do with the Democrats losing in 2016. That was because of Russia! Helsing posted:What's that you say? Obama oversaw a recovery that went almost exclusively to the 1%? But don't you see it's impossible to distribute gains from growth more evenly (let alone redistribute wealth) because ~*secular stagnation*~ ! Perhaps you'd understand if you had an e-mail notification coming to your phone every time Ezra Klein writes a new article.
|
# ? Jan 1, 2017 01:44 |
|
The top 1% captured 91% of the real income growth per family during the 2009-2012 recovery period, with their pre-tax incomes growing 34.7% adjusted for inflation while the pre-tax incomes of the bottom 99% grew 0.8%. Measured from 2009–2015, the top 1% captured 52% of the total real income growth per family, indicating the recovery was becoming less "lopsided" in favor of higher income families. By 2015, the top 10% (top decile) had a 50.5% share of the pre-tax income, close its highest all-time level. According to an article in The New Yorker, by 2012, the share of pre-tax income received by the top 1% had returned to its pre-crisis peak, at around 23% of the pre-tax income. By 2015, real incomes of bottom 99% have now recovered about two thirds of the losses experienced during the Great Recession from 2007 to 2009. Clearly economic inequality has returned to those halcyon days of 1996
|
# ? Jan 1, 2017 02:01 |
|
The 1% has been sucking money out of the workforce for 40 years and some guy seriously thinks like 1 year of it happening slightly less is something to cheer lead about. Neoliberalism cannot fail, we can only fail neoliberalism.
|
# ? Jan 1, 2017 02:07 |
|
I don't care about the marginal growths and thingies and whatever, all I know is top 1% bottom 99% etc etc Bernie was right. Anything that evens out the inequality and makes it so that we aren't amazingly hosed would be great.
|
# ? Jan 1, 2017 02:08 |
|
rscott posted:The top 1% captured 91% of the real income growth per family during the 2009-2012 recovery period, with their pre-tax incomes growing 34.7% adjusted for inflation while the pre-tax incomes of the bottom 99% grew 0.8%. Measured from 2009–2015, the top 1% captured 52% of the total real income growth per family, indicating the recovery was becoming less "lopsided" in favor of higher income families. By 2015, the top 10% (top decile) had a 50.5% share of the pre-tax income, close its highest all-time level. rscott posted:According to an article in The New Yorker, by 2012, the share of pre-tax income received by the top 1% had returned to its pre-crisis peak, at around 23% of the pre-tax income. rscott posted:By 2015, real incomes of bottom 99% have now recovered about two thirds of the losses experienced during the Great Recession from 2007 to 2009. Yes the rich getting richer is bad, but maybe pay attention to the situation that the rest of the world is in before killing off the goose that laid the golden egg
|
# ? Jan 1, 2017 02:21 |
|
Now tell us about how wealth inequality is just like 1999 too
|
# ? Jan 1, 2017 02:21 |
|
It was my understanding that rising inequality can spur secular stagnation.
|
# ? Jan 1, 2017 02:22 |
|
SaTaMaS posted:Yes if you start measuring right after a massive drop, you're going to see a big spike. Also as you said "close its highest all-time level" The peak in income for the top 1% was in 2012, you don't know what the gently caress you're even talking about, just stop. e: I mean if your argument is that Obama isn't any better or worse than Clinton, Bush or Reagan cool I don't think anyone is disputing that since that's the point all the leftists in this thread have been making all along rscott fucked around with this message at 02:38 on Jan 1, 2017 |
# ? Jan 1, 2017 02:29 |
|
rscott posted:The peak in income for the top 1% was in 2012, you don't know what the gently caress you're even talking about, just stop. Share of income is a better measure, and that peaked around 2007 http://www.cbpp.org/income-concentration-at-the-top-has-risen-sharply-since-the-1970s-1
|
# ? Jan 1, 2017 02:37 |
|
SaTaMaS posted:Share of income is a better measure, and that peaked around 2007 http://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2015.pdf Same guy says otherwise??? e: Whoops top 10% vs top 1%
|
# ? Jan 1, 2017 02:39 |
|
axeil posted:i'm in the industry and i'm gonna stop you right there and say that you have no idea what the gently caress you're talking about. Do you want to talk about the effectiveness of HAMP while you're at it?
|
# ? Jan 1, 2017 04:55 |
|
Happy New Year my fellow men! A period of massive economic tumult awaits us all!
|
# ? Jan 1, 2017 06:06 |
|
New Year's Resolution: figure out how to make money off our hosed up system.
|
# ? Jan 1, 2017 06:19 |
|
Pollyanna posted:New Year's Resolution: figure out how to make money off our hosed up system. Get rid of all your morals.
|
# ? Jan 1, 2017 06:40 |
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Get rid of all your morals.
|
# ? Jan 1, 2017 06:45 |
|
JeffersonClay posted:this part Was there anything else you felt was wrong besides the start date year of the Blue Dog Coalition? Your position seems to boil down to "Well Obama made things marginally better, therefore was he really a failure?". No one is saying that ACA isn't better than loving COBRA, we are saying he had what might be a once in a generation opportunity to affect big change to the vast disparities and inequalities in the American economy and he really didn't try. cheese fucked around with this message at 07:12 on Jan 1, 2017 |
# ? Jan 1, 2017 07:09 |
|
watch Trump appoint the reincarnation of Volcker to the Fed board and get crushed in 2020
|
# ? Jan 1, 2017 07:13 |
|
SaTaMaS posted:That’s not really how a court system works. Just because a company can challenge a country’s laws doesn’t mean it is likely they will win ISDS are not a traditional court system, it's a system of arbitration and no that is exactly the opposite how they tend to work out. It has successfully been used to bully third-world countries from enacting everything from labor and environmental laws to re-nationalization of mishandled resources. Mining methods poisoning your fresh-water supply? Better buckle up because if you try to do anything about it you can be sued to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.
|
# ? Jan 1, 2017 07:37 |
|
Pollyanna posted:New Year's Resolution: figure out how to make money off our hosed up system. Relax, we're developers. As capital continues to slosh around in search of returns, and people become more and more normalized to doing things online, the livelihood for lucky assholes like us almost assured. Heavily diversified after tax accounts are still a good option for people who can trust their own salaries. The real problem is all the people who don't have that choice, who we can help through joint political action! And like, running free neighborhood breakfasts. e: first draft sounded complacent, even smug, and that's not how i feel Doc Hawkins fucked around with this message at 08:46 on Jan 1, 2017 |
# ? Jan 1, 2017 08:39 |
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Get rid of all your morals. gently caress I'm levered up to my eyeballs buying stock in mushrooms and you tell me this now?!
|
# ? Jan 1, 2017 09:29 |
|
SaTaMaS posted:medical bankruptcies still happen almost as often under single-payer healthcare [citation needed]
|
# ? Jan 1, 2017 10:47 |
|
Pollyanna posted:I don't care about the marginal growths and thingies and whatever, all I know is top 1% bottom 99% etc etc Bernie was right. Anything that evens out the inequality and makes it so that we aren't amazingly hosed would be great. "i don't care about facts or anything else objective but i'm upset and i want my feelings validated!"
|
# ? Jan 1, 2017 11:04 |
|
axeil posted:"i don't care about facts or anything else objective but i'm upset and i want my feelings validated!" populism.txt
|
# ? Jan 1, 2017 13:14 |
|
Pollyanna posted:I had a (pretty uneducated) thought. If we do see another crash and depression, does that present an opportunity to buy up a bunch of cheap stock, or is that inadvisable? If everyone has the same idea, won't that cause stock prices to rise back up? Is always best to think counter-cyclical, but it's never very simple to identify the cycle you're supposed to be counter to. IE: recessions ARE good times to buy fire sale investments, but it can be really hard identifying the dead wood from something that will grow again post-recession.
|
# ? Jan 1, 2017 14:53 |
|
SaTaMaS posted:Still better than COBRA, also medical bankruptcies still happen almost as often under single-payer healthcare. If it's so bad, why are so many people buying it? Having lived for all of my 32 years in a country with a single-payer healthcare system, literally never met a single person who has gone through a medical bankruptcy. The NHS, despite the best efforts of economic liberals to sell parts of it to the private sector for some vaunted "competition", works. Is it perfect? Clearly not. Waiting times for non-emergency treatments can be longer than you'd like generally, and some new treatments simply cost too much to justify being introduced as early as you'd like. Still an amazing system and the idea that the worlds wealthiest nation doesn't think it can handle it is absurd.
|
# ? Jan 1, 2017 15:19 |
|
Doc Hawkins posted:Relax, we're developers. As capital continues to slosh around in search of returns, and people become more and more normalized to doing things online, the livelihood for lucky assholes like us almost assured. Heavily diversified after tax accounts are still a good option for people who can trust their own salaries. Maybe, but I see the tech bubble collapsing soon. VCs are getting pissed that there are less and less unicorns out there and startups tend to fail a lot more often now. They've lost their luster and although software engineering is always going to be in demand in some way, I don't see it going on the up n up and instead see stagnation coming up. We'll see, I guess.
|
# ? Jan 1, 2017 15:28 |
|
SaTaMaS posted:
Because they have to? That's why ppaca is a handout to insurance companies and the health care industry as a whole, you're forced to buy insurance but the price controls are weak to non existent, the out of pocket maximums even before you take into account out of network providers are so high as to put the majority of Americans in default if they face a major medical issue
|
# ? Jan 1, 2017 16:48 |
|
forkboy84 posted:Still an amazing system and the idea that the worlds wealthiest nation doesn't think it can handle it is absurd. A lot of Americans want it. poo poo tons of Americans want it. Phrased right to avoid the propaganda-created responses to key words I think it crosses over to a majority but I'm going off memory on that point. Those Americans are not the 1% that can go purchase a congressional representative and throw an army of lobbyists at the rest, so in our system they basically don't count and we end up with solutions that are more palatable to the wealthy, or "market based".
|
# ? Jan 1, 2017 18:35 |
|
bird food bathtub posted:A lot of Americans want it. poo poo tons of Americans want it. Phrased right to avoid the propaganda-created responses to key words I think it crosses over to a majority but I'm going off memory on that point.
|
# ? Jan 1, 2017 19:36 |
|
Huragok posted:[citation needed] In Canada, about 15% of bankruptcies are due to medical bills, while in the US, about 18%-25% of bankruptcies are due to medical bills http://www.snopes.com/643000-bankruptcies-in-the-u-s-every-year-due-to-medical-bills/ http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/263547-the-myth-of-medical-bankruptcy http://theconversation.com/why-medical-debt-and-bankruptcy-are-growing-problems-35532
|
# ? Jan 1, 2017 20:30 |
|
SaTaMaS posted:In Canada, about 15% of bankruptcies are due to medical bills*, while in the US, about 18%-25%** of bankruptcies are due to medical bills *15% of Canadian seniors ** One study done by a guy publishing in the Wall Street Journal, other estimates place it between 45-60% of bankruptcies in the US There fixed that so it's actually accurate instead of the intentionally misleading crap you have constantly posted in this thread
|
# ? Jan 1, 2017 20:37 |
|
rscott posted:*15% of Canadian seniors edit: from the link - quote:The data revealed that 61% of all debtors carry medical debt and that the average medical debt per debtor in 2013 was US$9,374. Debtors in my sample also reported an average of $55,967 in unsecured debt and annual income of $40,920. Of these, a total of 18% of debtors had medical debt that was greater than half of their total unsecured debt or half of their annual income. This higher number was just anyone who had any medical debt at all, vs the number for whom medical debt was the major reason for bankrupcy SaTaMaS fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Jan 1, 2017 |
# ? Jan 1, 2017 20:53 |
|
SaTaMaS posted:In Canada, about 15% of bankruptcies are due to medical bills, while in the US, about 18%-25% of bankruptcies are due to medical bills quote:Medical bankruptcy: Fact or fiction? This woman is the President of a "think" tank that, by it's own description, "champions freedom, opportunity, and personal responsibility by advancing free-market policy ideas." It even has a "Laffer Center" named after Art loving Laffer, the genius behind Reagonomics. And that article you're citing leans heavily on a "study" by the Fraser Institute. And even that bullshit study, which is coming from an organization that can be expected to juke the stats in whatever way is necessary to reach it's desired conclusion, still has to essentially cheat by including the proviso that many of the medical bankruptcies among Canadian seniors are from problems their insurance doesn't actually cover. These are not objective or peer reviewed studies they are propaganda pieces produced by think tanks whose only reason for existence is to advance the agenda of the people and corporations who pay into their extremely opaque funding structures. Is there any reason that you would drop these links -- both of which you clearly pulled from the snopes article -- except to try and create the false impression that you did more research than a very cursory google search? Not only are you bolstering your argument in the most clumsy and stupid way possible, you're citing sources that make you sound like a blithering idiot. Next you're probably going to say Obama was in the right for trying to cut social security and then you'll cite Paul Ryan's economic plan. The actual study behind your claim is here. The first thing you read in the actual study is that this is still a contentious area of research with different researchers producing wildly different findings. Austin's particular findings are an outlier. Warren (writing before Obamacare was implemented) concluded the results were closer to 60%. In another study by Himmelston (2009) finds 62.1% of bankruptcies are medically caused. Other studies varied from the high teens to high twenties as percentages. In general these studies produce numbers that vary depending on methodology or on how you define the object of study.
|
# ? Jan 1, 2017 21:16 |
|
One of the greatest problems with American medical care is not lack of insurance -- though that is certainly a huge problem, which Obamacare's crapified insurance plans often fail to rectify -- it's massively inflated costs. And Obamacare has failed to deal with that problem. This is one reason why we see people going bankrupt due to medical costs even in cases where they have insurance. Hell, the American government doesn't even allow itself to negotiate drug prices for medicare -- it's literally prohibited by law. If those kinds of bizzare regulations aren't a big flashign red light to you saying the system is fundamentally broken then I really don't know what to tell you. Not to mention the money that could be saved just by trimming administration costs. There is so much dead weight in the system and of course the Democrats had no interest in trying to get rid of it: quote:results
|
# ? Jan 1, 2017 21:32 |
|
Arglebargle III posted:gently caress I'm levered up to my eyeballs buying stock in mushrooms and you tell me this now?! If you mean white button, then you're set, because our nuclear hellscape underground megacities will need easy to grow nourishment.
|
# ? Jan 1, 2017 21:33 |
|
Helsing posted:One of the greatest problems with American medical care is not lack of insurance -- though that is certainly a huge problem, which Obamacare's crapified insurance plans often fail to rectify -- it's massively inflated costs. And Obamacare has failed to deal with that problem. This is one reason why we see people going bankrupt due to medical costs even in cases where they have insurance. Hell, the American government doesn't even allow itself to negotiate drug prices for medicare -- it's literally prohibited by law. If those kinds of bizzare regulations aren't a big flashign red light to you saying the system is fundamentally broken then I really don't know what to tell you. That's America in general, though; rampant administrative costs in just kind of everything. Nepotism and bonuses for high ranking people making good short term numbers. It's a time-honored American tradition to corrupt the system to its very core and get your pals cushy jobs telling other people they need to make these numbers better or else.
|
# ? Jan 1, 2017 23:37 |
|
Helsing posted:This woman is the President of a "think" tank that, by it's own description, "champions freedom, opportunity, and personal responsibility by advancing free-market policy ideas." It even has a "Laffer Center" named after Art loving Laffer, the genius behind Reagonomics. And that article you're citing leans heavily on a "study" by the Fraser Institute. And even that bullshit study, which is coming from an organization that can be expected to juke the stats in whatever way is necessary to reach it's desired conclusion, still has to essentially cheat by including the proviso that many of the medical bankruptcies among Canadian seniors are from problems their insurance doesn't actually cover. Yes the study says exactly what I quoted before, and that the 62.1% number is way off. The difference is the same as before - 62.1% is if you include every bankruptcy that included more than $1000 of medical bills, while 18% to 26% is bankruptcies that were primarily caused by medical bills. The second estimate is the less politically motivated one. quote:The data adduced in this study shows that medical bills are the single largest causal factor in consumer bankruptcy—but not to the degree found in the study cited by President Obama. My study concludes that medical debt is the predominant causal factor in 18% to 26% of all consumer bankruptcies.
|
# ? Jan 2, 2017 01:11 |
|
|
# ? May 9, 2024 10:15 |
|
It's going to be interesting watching Trump attempt to cut healthcare costs while constantly beating the "jobs" drum. Costs are jobs. Healthcare is close to 20% of the economy. Cutting healthcare 10% knocks out 2% of GDP.
|
# ? Jan 2, 2017 02:36 |