|
Yeah I think the thoughtful comparison above really undersells the income tax thing; 13% higher taxes than San Francisco is highest in the world territory
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 19:25 |
|
|
Bhodi posted:it's reason mag but it has a point http://reason.com/blog/2017/05/23/california-single-payer-health-care-cost Huh. Does anybody have an idea how this squares with the stats that many non-US countries with UHC spend less per capita for better health outcomes?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
I have a hard time getting past this part: quote:The Sacramento Bee notes that, even after accounting for an estimated $200 billion that could be saved by replacing current state-run health programs with the single-payer program, the state would still need to come up with $200 billion annually. So, the total spend for single payer is $400B. California can approximately cut $200B of other medical related spending by moving to single payer. The net cost is $200B compared to where they are now, because of that $400B in spending, $200B of it would not be new spending. But wait, the total state budget in California is $180B. But wait! How can California save $200B in present medical expenses if the entire state budget is $180B!?!?!?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
Dwight Eisenhower posted:I have a hard time getting past this part: Combined federal and state expenditures i believe, but also not accounting for employer and employee premium expenditures. There is some dishonest accounting on both sides of the debate. BEHOLD: MY CAPE fucked around with this message at 18:42 on May 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
BEHOLD: MY CAPE posted:Combined federal and state expenditures i believe, but also not accounting for employer and employee premium expenditures. There is some dishonest accounting on both sides of the debate. Wait, so the article conflated "budget" and "revenue" as being the same term when in fact they're important and wildly different terms? How... unreasonable.  Even if you solve that, the whole discussion is still dishonest, because it doesn't factor in what people are presently spending in California to buy insurance from private insurers. The need to buy from private insurers would go away for individuals (either directly or through their employers) in a state with Single Payer, so what you need to present to people is: What they pay in taxes What they pay in health insurance premiums What they pay in non-covered medical expenses and co-pays compared to Paying more taxes for single payer Comparative costs for non-covered medical expenses and co-pays (if the Single Payer system features these use fees) That could get closer to an apples to apples comparison. There's still other dimensions. How patient costs can get influenced when care providers have only one party to negotiate with. How single payer curtails drive by doctoring. How care provider costs can get influenced when there's only one party to bill who pays reliably and on time. I don't think everyone needs to necessarily be pro-Single Payer, but the discussion should at least be conducted in a realm of intellectual honesty and rigor.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
pig slut lisa posted:Huh. Does anybody have an idea how this squares with the stats that many non-US countries with UHC spend less per capita for better health outcomes? I saw a couple articles saying that the California $400 billion estimate was a lovely analysis based on bad assumptions and levels of coverage that not a single other UHC country provides. I don't know the specifics myself, but if it was a bullshit political "study" that tried to come up with the biggest price tag possible that would explain the discrepancy.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
The entire budget of the NHS (UK system) is like $180 bn No way cali on its own can cost more than double that.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
There are fixed costs involved with switching also but yeah, that's a good sanity check on the $400 billion number.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
Cast_No_Shadow posted:The entire budget of the NHS (UK system) is like $180 bn NHS enforces some level of price controls (on medication for instance) that a US state probably can't get away with.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:NHS enforces some level of price controls (on medication for instance) that a US state probably can't get away with. California probably could. It's bigger than most countries already both in population and economic clout. It regularly uses that fact to force regulation on industry that the federal government won't. See CARB and other emissions regulations for example.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
pr0zac posted:California probably could. It's bigger than most countries already both in population and economic clout. It regularly uses that fact to force regulation on industry that the federal government won't. See CARB and other emissions regulations for example. It depends. NHS has at times drawn the line on drugs for cancer treatment depending what boils down to "how much it costs per year of additional life it gives people", nivumolab being an example. Most people don't really care if their car is a little more expensive/gets less mileage/has less HP due to emissions controls. The beep-boop accountant in me says "yeah you should take into account the cost-effectiveness of medication", but I'm also a caretaker. I'd like to let loose the laboratories of democracy to figure out something that works. If California can use it's economic might to force lower prices, perhaps in cooperation with other states, sure.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
Arguing about some American exceptionalism when it comes to healthcare is bizarre considering we have a plethora of real-world examples ranging from Singapore to Scandinavia.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 01:58
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Arguing about some American exceptionalism when it comes to healthcare is bizarre considering we have a plethora of real-world examples ranging from Singapore to Scandinavia. Those are all different systems. Canada, as I understand it, is single payer but the medical providers are mostly private, but that's not true for the NHS where private health care workers are less common and most work for the government. Switzerland has mandatory private insurance. France has universal care but most people have supplemental insurance. Singapore doesn't offer *any* completely free medical services. I'm sure you have one preference over another but if we could force people to buy ACA plans (making it like Switzerland) is that what you were hoping for?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 02:30
|
|
|
pig slut lisa posted:Huh. Does anybody have an idea how this squares with the stats that many non-US countries with UHC spend less per capita for better health outcomes? We have universal healthcare in New Zealand. Our income taxes are lower than the US and we have no capital gains tax. There is American exceptionalism when it comes to healthcare costs but it's not the good sort of exceptionalism. Of course we have our own problems like unaffordable housing and a housing bubble that's similar to the one in Toronto and in Australia.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
pig slut lisa posted:You may want to consider starting your own thread in BFC. This thread doesn't get a lot of traffic compared to some others. New threads in BFC are always Very GoodTM. My own thread or move this post to the long term investing thread? This will probably set off BFC alarms, but I don't feel like I need a complete revision of my current budget or a breakdown of my monthly spending (although yeah I should spend 500 a month less and save it instead, and I've already adjusted my auto-deposit). I don't need help tracking how much I'm spending on groceries so much as I need to figure out bigger questions like rent vs buy, if just dumping 4k a month into the vanguard total stock market fund is a good idea, or how much cash is reasonable to hold.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 05:06
|
|
|
Dwight Eisenhower posted:
lol what country do you live in bruh content edit: I was listening to something the other day that was saying that 529 plans aren't really worth it because (a)they get factored into aid packages (b) are incredibly difficult to liquidate if something happens and your kid dies/doesn't go to college you basically just have to give it away to a lucky cousin or something. El Mero Mero fucked around with this message at 05:18 on May 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 05:10
|
|
|
81k posted:My own thread or move this post to the long term investing thread? Your situation is far from unique here. I realize the stereotype of someone needing to budget their milk or whatever is that of a person trying to stretch their limited cash flow, but as far as FI goes, it's extremely important no matter what your income is. Reasoning about the cost of such things over a lifetime is kinda like, the point.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 06:30
|
|
|
Hi Goons. I made a post in e/n about wanting to be rich and frustrated with myself for coasting, and got pointed to go over here. I didn't really know that the thing that I want is referred to as Financial Independence, but here it is. I'm 29, married with three kids 5, 2, and just a few weeks old. Right now I work as a software engineer making 95k. That is an assload of money (I do not live in San Francisco) but I'm constantly broke. Why? I have two car payments totaling $770/mo and $16k in credit card debt. The debt was accrued by a bunch of dumb incidents (emergency dental work, legal fees, etc). I made a spreadsheet of my family's month expenses and included conservative estimates for incidental purchases. Making minimum payments on the credit cards, I would at best have a monthly surplus of about $1k but I think $750 is a more realistic estimate. At that rate, I would pay off the credit cards in an estimated 2 years, and the cars in an estimated 4 years (my wife and I do plan on keeping these two cars for a very very long time, we specifically purchased Japanese cars with very high reputations for reliability). That doesn't seem like all that much in the long run but it is very discouraging to see it taking that long to dig out of the hole. Do y'all think there is hope for me to 'retire' any time before I'm 65? I do often dream of being self-employed but I guess this amount of debt is really making it hard to forge a path to it. Apologies for making GBS threads up your thread with this I guess rambling post.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
I'd need to see more numbers - complete assets, debts, monthly costs, income - to give my own non-expert opinion but I would guess you have a chance. Does your wife work? If not, will she go back one day? Will you advance in your career to higher income ranges at some point?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
Yeah exactly. You haven't mentioned student loans which means bankruptcy is an option, though your debt doesn't sounds that high. 3 kids is gonna be expensive no matter how you slice it. Seconding the need for numbers on all those things.
Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 18:46 on May 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
Without knowing the details, most likely the best course of action is: -Pay off credit card debt immediately. Any money not going into an emergency fund, sink it into this --If you can manage a promotional interest free balance transfer, do that but make sure it's paid off before the grace period -Can you change the car situation? --Can one or both of you drive something cheaper? Sell what you have and do that. --If you can't justify changing cars, at least see if there are better options for the car debt. Credit unions can offer good rates. --If neither of the above is an option, and you're paying more than [investment returns]%, all cash should go here Once the high-interest rate is dealt with, max out tax advantaged accounts. You should have more breathing room from there.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:I'd need to see more numbers - complete assets, debts, monthly costs, income - to give my own non-expert opinion but I would guess you have a chance. Does your wife work? If not, will she go back one day? Will you advance in your career to higher income ranges at some point? Currently my wife does not work - she says she might but honestly I don't see her getting another day job as long as I'm paying the bills. She might spin up a home baking business one day though. My income has more or less linearly increased from 42k in 2011 to 95 in 2017 so I guess it could keep going up? Idk I always thought of 100k as the threshold but we'll see. I do have about 50k in IRA accounts, and we have some equity (somewhere between 20 and 50k depending on whose estimate you believe) in our house. My job is our sole income right now and for the forseeable future (unless I actually succeed in setting up some kind of side-business). The lion's share of our monthly expenses are the mortgage, car payments, cc payments, food, and all the incidental expenses that come with having kids.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Without knowing the details, most likely the best course of action is: - Yeah, I do know the CC's are top priority, but like I said, best guess is two years to make them go away., I can look for interest-free transfers, I suppose. - I Can't really change the car situation. Mine I just bought used because I need a van to haul around everyone (go check out the AI meets BFC thread, haha) and my wife bought hers new 18 months ago and will not give it up for anything. Both have solid rates (3% and 4%)
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
If your wife doesn't want to work and needs to have a new car to the point she won't consider giving it up, that's going to make things difficult because if that's the mindset when you have a pretty big debt load, it's probably not going to improve as debts are paid off, even if they're replaced by new ones. If you want to retire before you're 65, you should probably start with finding out if she wants you to retire before 65 and be able to enjoy more free time together after your kids are grown and out of the house. If she does, she might need to change some of her priorities. I don't like everything Mr. Money Moustache says, but for example, I like his phrase of looking at it as buying your freedom. Is that worth more than a nicer car? That's up to you, but to me it is. If she doesn't care if you work until you die, you're going to have problems. Early retirement requires you both to be on the same page unless you have separate finances, and since you're both spending your earnings, that's not possible (and since in a divorce separate finances magically become joined, I would say that even if you have separate finances plans on the timeline of "retirement" would be tenuous if both aren't on the same page). Nail Rat fucked around with this message at 18:58 on May 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:If your wife doesn't want to work and needs to have a new car to the point she won't consider giving it up, that's going to make things difficult because if that's the mindset when you have a pretty big debt load, it's probably not going to improve as debts are paid off, even if they're replaced by new ones. Point taken. FWIW, though, it's not that my wife has to always own a new car. It just so happened that 18 months ago the car she had and owned 100% was breaking down to the point that she didn't feel safe driving the kids in it. We are planning on paying off her car (and mine) and driving both of them for a long time past paying off the loans, hopefully handing them down when our kids reach driving age (that is, if autonomous vehicles haven't taken over by then). That is - there are no plans to introduce new debt, just to pay off what is owed currently. If you were to take my current monthly cashflow and just magically wave away the debts, we'd be putting away roughly $1500/month. That seems like it would be a hell of a lot to be able to save, problem is getting to that point. I think long-term keeping our cars well-maintained over their lives will pay off.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
Careful Drums posted:Currently my wife does not work - she says she might but honestly I don't see her getting another day job as long as I'm paying the bills. She might spin up a home baking business one day though. My income has more or less linearly increased from 42k in 2011 to 95 in 2017 so I guess it could keep going up? Idk I always thought of 100k as the threshold but we'll see. If you haven't changed jobs in a while, start looking. You can make a lot of money as a developer depending on your skill set. It's probably worth making your own thread though if you want more in-depth advice.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
Inept posted:If you haven't changed jobs in a while, start looking. You can make a lot of money as a developer depending on your skill set. It's probably worth making your own thread though if you want more in-depth advice. Haha, thanks. I do change jobs a lot - this is my 5th job in 7 years, and that's how I got my income up from its starting point of 42k. I guess I could start looking again but I _really_ like my current job for the constant learning, low-stress, and short commute.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
Careful Drums posted:Do y'all think there is hope for me to 'retire' any time before I'm 65? I do often dream of being self-employed but I guess this amount of debt is really making it hard to forge a path to it. Based on your posts so far, I think you will be lucky if you save enough money to survive unexpected unemployment (50+ year old software engineers don't do so well) and subsidize social security a bit. You will have to get your wife on board if you actually want to retire early, and it sounds like you have a ways to go there.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
I'd really suggest thinking about talking to your wife about working again when the kids are old enough that she doesn't have to spend a lot of energy keeping them alive. 3 kids is going to be expensive any way you slice it, and so will 2 vehicles, even if they're paid off. More income is only one way to tackle the problem, but it's an effective one, especially because that's a big potential income boost sitting right there even if she was only earning say 30k.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
Droo posted:Based on your posts so far, I think you will be lucky if you save enough money to survive unexpected unemployment (50+ year old software engineers don't do so well) and subsidize social security a bit. You will have to get your wife on board if you actually want to retire early, and it sounds like you have a ways to go there. That seems a little extreme. The ageism thing in SF isn't as bad in Detroit - I've worked with plenty of people in their 40s and 50s. But yeah, I'm under no delusion I can just coast with my current skills forever. I guess the next thing to do is to start crunching some real numbers and making plans. Thank you goons for being real with me. e: Nail Rat posted:More income is only one way to tackle the problem, but it's an effective one Yes - prior to posting here my mindset was that making any amount of extra money would be a huge boost. I think I'd be able to start a side-business (or a "side-hustle" as the cool kids call it) faster than my wife would go back to work which would take at minimum five years. But it's a big unknown for me and actually where my e/n post originated to the tune of "i want to start a business but i am lazy wahhhhh" Careful Drums fucked around with this message at 19:13 on May 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
Careful Drums posted:Point taken. FWIW, though, it's not that my wife has to always own a new car. It just so happened that 18 months ago the car she had and owned 100% was breaking down to the point that she didn't feel safe driving the kids in it. We are planning on paying off her car (and mine) and driving both of them for a long time past paying off the loans, hopefully handing them down when our kids reach driving age (that is, if autonomous vehicles haven't taken over by then). Yeah, so, I think you and your wife both need to put some thought into, and then talk through your priorities with each other. If you're looking to retire well off, maybe even 5 years early, then being a high earner, and setting up a budget to pay off your debts, then save most of the freed up money will probably get you there. There will be some sacrifices. You're going to have to have a real budget and think about your purchases more than you have been. You're not in a terrible place currently, but you've racked up a good chunk of debt, so you'll have to buckle down until that is paid off. You probably won't be able to pay your kids ways through school, you probably won't be buying new cars, etc. That's a perfectly laudable goal -- you'd be doing better than the vast majority of people. This thread is more focused on the goal of being able to leave work entirely after 10-15 years of a career (though not necessarily doing so). I don't want to suggest that it is better or worse than the goal above, just different. It requires a lot more current sacrifices, especially with 3 kids. It would more or less require selling one or both of your cars for cheaper options, and it would require looking at all aspects of your current financial life, including the location of your house, what you think is important in life, etc. It kind of seems to me like this isn't what you want (which is fine!). In that case, your best option is probably to start a thread, lay out your budget there, and the result of your goals conversation with your wife.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
Careful Drums posted:That seems a little extreme. The ageism thing in SF isn't as bad in Detroit - I've worked with plenty of people in their 40s and 50s. As have I, but with more and more moves towards software/IT as a service and automation, it's hard to guess just how many developers are going to be needed in 25 years. I've made it a priority to be ready to hit the eject button in 20 years partly for that reason. Maybe it will never become an issue but if it does, I'll (hopefully) be able to be unaffected by it. Nail Rat fucked around with this message at 19:16 on May 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
Careful Drums posted:That seems a little extreme. The ageism thing in SF isn't as bad in Detroit - I've worked with plenty of people in their 40s and 50s. But yeah, I'm under no delusion I can just coast with my current skills forever. I guess the next thing to do is to start crunching some real numbers and making plans. There are about as many 25-44 year olds as there are 45-64 year olds in the US. Have you worked with a relatively equal group of software engineers > 45 and < 45 over the years?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
Grumpwagon posted:It kind of seems to me like this isn't what you want (which is fine!). In that case, your best option is probably to start a thread, lay out your budget there, and the result of your goals conversation with your wife. Thanks, yes, I will do that and stop making GBS threads up your thread 
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:As have I, but with more and move moves towards software/IT as a service and automation, it's hard to guess just how many developers are going to be needed in 25 years. I've made it a priority to be ready to hit the eject button in 20 years partly for that reason. Maybe it will never become an issue but if it does, I'll (hopefully) be able to be unaffected by it.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
I share that feeling - my Dad worked for the same company for 22 years thinking we would end up very wealthy but then Chinese manufacturing happened and he was unemployed when I was in high school. We made it work because my parents were very frugal. I don't plan on programming being so insanely valuable forever either. There's no evidence that the demand is slowing down but that kind of stuff is very hard to predict.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
I think anybody who has been growing professionally anywhere in IT can find a position in an uncertain future. At worst, legacy support for Fortune 500 companies isn't going anywhere quickly.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
Agreed, for the foreseeable future. Especially if you've got broad experience and can interface with business people I think there will always be work for bright IT/dev people in the next 20 years. The bonanza of VC-fueled startup culture will eventually pass, but there's an unfathomably large legacy IT/code base in all sectors of business and industry that is not going away any time soon. It's not necessarily new sexy cutting edge stuff, but it's real work that pays well. And there will be (already is) a ton of work out there to help migrate/rebuild old legacy systems onto more modern platforms and services. And at the pace large companies move that's decades worth of work. Long term the face of IT & development will likely change, but there's a long road to travel before we get there.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
Sometimes I wonder if the salaries for actuaries can stay the way they are. On one hand the field has been like this for a really long time, much longer than tech. On the other hand everybody who can code (including me) is furiously automating as many analyses as possible. But the amount of stuff that needs doing, and the staff budget to do it has grown even faster. Most of the stuff we're automating first is tedious repetitive spreadsheet work - the kind of work we give to first/second year analysts and it helps them learn the underlying mechanics of the industry. I semi-joke to coworkers that once our latest project is complete we probably won't need to hire anyone under 3yrs experience again. I plan to retire at 50 anyway, but I can't honestly predict what the hell is going to happen. The profession might be gone. Or it might end up where experienced actuaries are making mega-bank because the young whippersnappers who would replace us simply never existed.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 19:25 |
|
|
I think the crash of the law profession after the 2008 recession is a good case study of what happens when there is a glut of skilled labor and a sudden drop in demand for that labor. Lots of differences though, and I think SE will be a stable, and likely high paying profession for people in their 30's+. Might be a different story for kids majoring in SE in university now.
grenada fucked around with this message at 22:08 on May 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 22:04
|
|