Yellen's job puzzle: Why are 20-somethings retiring?

[zdreg]

Besides, its actually good for business to feed the hungry. They have more money now to pay for iphones. If they actually died, Apple would suffer from less sales.

that is actually the way every failed economy is South America has operated over the decades. i.e. brazil, argentina , venezuela.

apple may lose some sales but businesses will not invest and create jobs, because they recognize that the government will come after them with draconian taxation and regulations to pay for their income redistribution schemes.

 

[der_kommissar]

Uber is simply bypassing the regulations that have always protected cabs from competition (and bad eggs.) The laws and regulations are sold as being good for the consumer but end up only being good for the monopoly.

Now my friend, IF you allowed cabs to run free like Uber, then you might see some competition.

Agree with this...The guy who gets the shaft is the poor cabdriver who had to pay $300k or whatever the "market price" was for his medallion at peak monopoly pricing...If anything, I'd rather see more competition in various industries to undo so many of the "racket's" that have developed in our economy...

 

[der_kommissar]

I agree with that, but either Uber needs to be kicked out, since they are breaking rules, no matter how shady those rules are, or the rules need to be abolished at the government level. But as it is now, its another case of "different strokes for different folks".

The second part makes the most sense to me...the rules need to be abolished...more competition, less cartel like economic fiefdom's...

(btw, am I the only one who was scratching his head when FanDuel and Draftking's suddenly became "kosher" around the country? then, out of the blue, several states decided that it was gambling and that it wasn't legal...All I could think was that they hired the same group of lobbyists that got the Uber's of the world approved for local business.)

 

[VPhantom]

that is actually the way every failed economy is South America has operated over the decades. i.e. brazil, argentina , venezuela.

I'd just like to point out that feeding the hungry (although barely) and healing the sick is what we do in Canada, and we're a first-world economy. A healthy population is a working population, which in turn pays taxes and consumes. Letting your citizens starve and get sick without care between jobs or due to illness itself, hinders economic growth and is contrary to the purpose of living in organized societies: pooling resources (and agreeing to common rules) to achieve more collectively than would be possible individually.

And I'm not even talking about the USA conservatives' whole fear of "socialized medical care" (or "government" anything) per se. I just see how pure capitalism actually fails to serve the consumer's best interest in key markets like your health care. $500-700 for a bag of saline solution which costs $1 to produce, and is sold under $100 to insurers? That's not self-regulation... unless there's no competition, I suppose.

 

[zdreg]

I'd just like to point out that feeding the hungry (although barely) and healing the sick is what we do in Canada, and we're a first-world economy. A healthy population is a working population, which in turn pays taxes and consumes. Letting your citizens starve and get sick without care between jobs or due to illness itself, hinders economic growth and is contrary to the purpose of living in organized societies: pooling resources (and agreeing to common rules) to achieve more collectively than would be possible individually.

And I'm not even talking about the USA conservatives' whole fear of "socialized medical care" (or "government" anything) per se. I just see how pure capitalism actually fails to serve the consumer's best interest in key markets like your health care. $500-700 for a bag of saline solution which costs $1 to produce, and is sold under $100 to insurers? That's not self-regulation... unless there's no competition, I suppose.

it is a rational move before the possible imposition of price controls under the next Democratic president in the US.

further Canadian Health Care is not exactly a bed of roses, even if drug prices are lower.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...sal-health-care-is-the-goal-dont-copy-canada/

 

[ktm]

Pure capitalism is indeed quite good at sorting out those that will thrive from those that will subsist. Throw in a gov't safety net to handle the basic needs of the poor, hungry, disabled and (otherwise deserving) unfortunate and we've got the basics for a viable system. That's what we started with in the 1930's.

Since then, it's largely been one bureaucratic policy after another designed to enrich one interest or another at the expense of the unknowing or uninterested. That's why $1 saline bags cost $100 in the US.

The millenial simplistic solution is to just take more from the evil rich to spread around. These "old GOP voters" that are referenced here have been around long enough to realize that spreading around more funds taken from the people is no more a cure than a band aid on skin cancer. I wouldn't have a problem paying higher taxes if the money were spent wisely and efficiently. The amount of funds taken in by the US gov't is more than enough - at present levels - to handle our affairs in a way that cares for all of our citizens. If the millenials want to truly make a difference, they should fight for responsible distribution of the enormous sums of money collected by the gov't every year instead of ignorantly demanding that more be taken from the people.

 

[VPhantom]

Canadian Health Care is not exactly a bed of roses, even if drug prices are lower

I was just using Canada as a general example, not specifically. (Although our long ER waits don't seem to be that much longer than elsewhere...) Fact remains that for example in Germany, where health care is also private, an old-school open appendectomy costs about $3K vs $13K in the USA. Comparable first-world technology, doctor qualifications, etc. It's surprising your health insurance companies don't just fly patients out routinely for the savings!

While I do believe in state-provided health care, I'm not arguing its merits here; I am however saying that by not at the very least down-regulating those huge profit levels in essential services such as health care, the USA is doing more harm than good. That market is not self-regulating (oligopoly?) so of course mandating insurance on top of those profits is expensive, but at least it's something being done to tackle the problem, which I suspect was easier to achieve than addressing the root cause.

Cut those health care bills by 5x to 10x to come back in line with other first-world countries, and a lot of peripheral problems would resolve themselves.

 

[der_kommissar]

I was just using Canada as a general example, not specifically. (Although our long ER waits don't seem to be that much longer than elsewhere...) Fact remains that for example in Germany, where health care is also private, an old-school open appendectomy costs about $3K vs $13K in the USA. Comparable first-world technology, doctor qualifications, etc. It's surprising your health insurance companies don't just fly patients out routinely for the savings!

While I do believe in state-provided health care, I'm not arguing its merits here; I am however saying that by not at the very least down-regulating those huge profit levels in essential services such as health care, the USA is doing more harm than good. That market is not self-regulating (oligopoly?) so of course mandating insurance on top of those profits is expensive, but at least it's something being done to tackle the problem, which I suspect was easier to achieve than addressing the root cause.

Cut those health care bills by 5x to 10x to come back in line with other first-world countries, and a lot of peripheral problems would resolve themselves.

You've made good points and yes, cut those health care bills by 5-10x and things would improve a great deal...But what you have to understand is that the "cartel" is protected by politicians on both sides of the aisle...The ACA is a perfect embodiment of lobbyist's who have no political affiliation, they just produced a product that combines the worst of all idealogies as it relates to health care.

 

[VPhantom]

But what you have to understand is that the "cartel" is protected by politicians on both sides of the aisle...

I see that as an unfortunate consequence of wild capitalism though. I'm actually surprised that for all the great protections provided by your constitution, there can still be that kind of conflict of interest to the detriment of the population. Lots of checks and balances (almost to the point of dysfunction) but lobbying is scary huge... I wonder if a privately funded president (not necessarily Sanders) could even have enough power to remedy that. There'd probably be a lobby to protect lobbies!

 

[ktm]

I see that as an unfortunate consequence of wild capitalism though. I'm actually surprised that for all the great protections provided by your constitution, there can still be that kind of conflict of interest to the detriment of the population. Lots of checks and balances (almost to the point of dysfunction) but lobbying is scary huge... I wonder if a privately funded president (not necessarily Sanders) could even have enough power to remedy that. There'd probably be a lobby to protect lobbies!

That's the rub here in the US. I think the vast majority of the public feels like they aren't paying for something if it isn't billed to them via their mailbox and taken from their wallet by their own hand.

That's how the regulations have gained this sticking power over the years. The $100 saline bags are a great example. It costs $1 and might retail for $2, but if you have no insurance you get charged $100 and get a bill for that. If you have insurance, the insurance company negotiated it down to $30 for you and your share is only $10 and the balance is written off as an "adjustment". Most people feel like they got this great bargain for only having to pay $10 for something that costs $100.

Most of the public is just baffled with all the complexity and all the players and is just happy to be getting such a great deal. It's too hard for them to understand that their health care wouldn't be $1200 a month if the industry didn't play all the games. Too many people are making too much money for anyone to put a stop to it.

I think that's why Trump may have such a following. There may be this glimmer of hope that he may be the only guy who MIGHT have the balls to stop all this nonsense. Probably not, but we know the others will maintain the status quo.