|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Healthcare is income that is cheaper for employers to give because premiums are tax deductible business expenses.
So?
Should businesses ramp up pay to significantly higher levels so employees could buy their own health insurance individually, guaranteeing fewer employees on the payroll?
I'm not sure what impression you're trying to make with that sentence, that it's bad for businesses to save money with tax deductions from providing health insurance to their employees?
I don't really get the point you are making.
Health insurance benefits are not a wage and almost half of Americans with health insurance get health insurance through their employer, so the statement that the vast majority of people receive a wage-only income is false on its face.
Both examples you cited don't refute his point, they just show that there are worse forms of reimbursement then per hour wage for employees.
Of course they do, here's a little help for you:
Wage
Often, wages. money that is paid or received for work or services, as by the hour, day, or week.
If it isn't putting money in your bank account based on how many hours you work, it almost certainly is not a wage. Employer-provided health insurance is not a wage, it is a benefit. Thus, it is quite impossible for the "vast majority" of people in the US to be getting a wage-only income.
How your employer paying for your health insurance with you having to pay significantly lower premiums, co-pays and deductibles than you would have to if you signed up for your own health insurance plan on your own as an individual is a bad form of reimbursement for work is a mystery that let's just admit it now you will never solve.
|
Senate Republicans blocked a vote on Wednesday to open debate on the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would hold employers more accountable for wage discrimination against women. The Senate voted 53 to 44 to move forward on the bill, falling short of the 60 votes needed to overcome a Republican filibuster.
The bill would prohibit retaliation against employees who share their salary information with each other, which supporters say would eliminate the culture of silence that keeps women in the dark about pay discrimination. It would also require the Department of Labor to collect wage data from employers, broken down by race and gender, and require employers to show that wage differentials between men and women in the same jobs are for a reason other than sex.
"At a time when the Obama economy is already hurting women so much, this legislation would double down on job loss, all while lining the pockets of trial lawyers," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said before the vote. "In other words, it's just another Democratic idea that threatens to hurt the very people that it claims to help."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) criticized McConnell's caucus for opposing the bill.
"Are they so repulsed by equal pay for hardworking women that they'll obstruct equal pay for equal work?" he said Wednesday before the vote. "I'm at a loss as to why anyone would decline to debate this important issue."
The bill is part of the Democrats' larger policy push, ahead of the November election, to increase economic security for women, which includes proposals to raise the minimum wage, allow workers to earn a certain amount of paid family and sick leave and expand affordable childcare and pre-Kindergarten for working parents.
Source
|
On April 10 2014 01:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +Healthcare is income that is cheaper for employers to give because premiums are tax deductible business expenses. So? Should businesses ramp up pay to significantly higher levels so employees could buy their own health insurance individually, guaranteeing fewer employees on the payroll? I'm not sure what impression you're trying to make with that sentence, that it's bad for businesses to save money with tax deductions from providing health insurance to their employees? Health insurance benefits are not a wage and almost half of Americans with health insurance get health insurance through their employer, so the statement that the vast majority of people receive a wage-only income is false on its face. Show nested quote +Both examples you cited don't refute his point, they just show that there are worse forms of reimbursement then per hour wage for employees. Of course they do, here's a little help for you: Show nested quote +Wage
Often, wages. money that is paid or received for work or services, as by the hour, day, or week. If it isn't putting money in your bank account based on how many hours you work, it almost certainly is not a wage. Employer-provided health insurance is not a wage, it is a benefit. Thus, it is quite impossible for the "vast majority" of people in the US to be getting a wage-only income. How your employer paying for your health insurance with you having to pay significantly lower premiums, co-pays and deductibles than you would have to if you signed up for your own health insurance plan on your own as an individual is a bad form of reimbursement for work is a mystery that let's just admit it now you will never solve.
If employer health care did not exist we would most definitely have a single-payer system by now. So yes, it is a bad thing. There, I solved it.
|
On April 10 2014 01:03 Livelovedie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 00:50 DeepElemBlues wrote:According to the Kaiser Foundation 48% of people (in 2012) with health insurance in the US get it from their employer. So no, the vast majority of people do not receive a wage-only income. If you consider a salary to be different from a wage income (pre-set amount of money you make in a certain amount of time, not X dollars per hour times Y hours worked), then it is probably the case is just the opposite: that the vast majority of people do not receive a wage-only income. Healthcare is income that is cheaper for employers to give because premiums are tax deductible business expenses. I don't really get the point you are making. Both examples you cited don't refute his point, they just show that there are worse forms of reimbursement then per hour wage for employees.
Healthcare benefits aren't a worse form of reimbursement. $2K in a benefit you want is just as good as $2K in wages. Actually the $2K in benefits might be better since you don't get taxed on it...
|
On April 10 2014 02:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 01:03 Livelovedie wrote:On April 10 2014 00:50 DeepElemBlues wrote:According to the Kaiser Foundation 48% of people (in 2012) with health insurance in the US get it from their employer. So no, the vast majority of people do not receive a wage-only income. If you consider a salary to be different from a wage income (pre-set amount of money you make in a certain amount of time, not X dollars per hour times Y hours worked), then it is probably the case is just the opposite: that the vast majority of people do not receive a wage-only income. Healthcare is income that is cheaper for employers to give because premiums are tax deductible business expenses. I don't really get the point you are making. Both examples you cited don't refute his point, they just show that there are worse forms of reimbursement then per hour wage for employees. Healthcare benefits aren't a worse form of reimbursement. $2K in a benefit you want is just as good as $2K in wages. Actually the $2K in benefits might be better since you don't get taxed on it...
They are a worse form of benefits from a societal point of view.
|
On April 10 2014 02:10 Livelovedie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 02:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 10 2014 01:03 Livelovedie wrote:On April 10 2014 00:50 DeepElemBlues wrote:According to the Kaiser Foundation 48% of people (in 2012) with health insurance in the US get it from their employer. So no, the vast majority of people do not receive a wage-only income. If you consider a salary to be different from a wage income (pre-set amount of money you make in a certain amount of time, not X dollars per hour times Y hours worked), then it is probably the case is just the opposite: that the vast majority of people do not receive a wage-only income. Healthcare is income that is cheaper for employers to give because premiums are tax deductible business expenses. I don't really get the point you are making. Both examples you cited don't refute his point, they just show that there are worse forms of reimbursement then per hour wage for employees. Healthcare benefits aren't a worse form of reimbursement. $2K in a benefit you want is just as good as $2K in wages. Actually the $2K in benefits might be better since you don't get taxed on it... They are a worse form of benefits from a societal point of view.
So go yell at FDR's corpse 
|
On April 10 2014 01:53 Livelovedie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 01:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:Healthcare is income that is cheaper for employers to give because premiums are tax deductible business expenses. So? Should businesses ramp up pay to significantly higher levels so employees could buy their own health insurance individually, guaranteeing fewer employees on the payroll? I'm not sure what impression you're trying to make with that sentence, that it's bad for businesses to save money with tax deductions from providing health insurance to their employees? I don't really get the point you are making. Health insurance benefits are not a wage and almost half of Americans with health insurance get health insurance through their employer, so the statement that the vast majority of people receive a wage-only income is false on its face. Both examples you cited don't refute his point, they just show that there are worse forms of reimbursement then per hour wage for employees. Of course they do, here's a little help for you: Wage
Often, wages. money that is paid or received for work or services, as by the hour, day, or week. If it isn't putting money in your bank account based on how many hours you work, it almost certainly is not a wage. Employer-provided health insurance is not a wage, it is a benefit. Thus, it is quite impossible for the "vast majority" of people in the US to be getting a wage-only income. How your employer paying for your health insurance with you having to pay significantly lower premiums, co-pays and deductibles than you would have to if you signed up for your own health insurance plan on your own as an individual is a bad form of reimbursement for work is a mystery that let's just admit it now you will never solve. If employer health care did not exist we would most definitely have a single-payer system by now. So yes, it is a bad thing. There, I solved it.
Would you care to elaborate? As far as I'm aware when people are talking about single-payer systems they're referring to the idea that there is only one insurer,most of the time in form of the government. That has little to do with who pays part of your insurance cost,or maybe I'm just misunderstanding you. (For example here in Germany nearly everyone is publicly insured, but employers are still forced to cover half of your insurance cost.)
|
On April 10 2014 00:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2014 15:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2014 14:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 09 2014 14:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2014 12:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 09 2014 11:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2014 11:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 09 2014 11:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2014 10:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 09 2014 10:09 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Big difference between nothing and 'not a whole lot' Not really. Unless you include things like party image. Yeah there really is. I mean if it were up to Republicans, they would of left things as they were before the Fair Pay Act. Which was by any account just plain ignorant. Not surprisingly there are still issues that should be discussed/addressed. Not surprisingly Republicans are right there to stand in the way of not just action but the conversation itself. And the White House (presuming this wage gap can't be explained away like Republicans have attempted elsewhere) is a great example of how discrimination may happen without knowledge or with the opposite intention. That's one of several reasons why the information is important to gather and analyze in the first place. Side note: They used the same 'flawed' method to determine that $0.88 : $1.00 gap as the $0.77 : $1.00 So by that measure they are doing better than average! Coincidentally, the difference (~$0.11) between the two is approximately the wage gap presumed to be a result of discrimination. When it's not you being discriminated against it might not seem like a big deal and just a political "image" adjustment (given for some it might be). But for those women and the people who care about them raising families, planning for retirement, assessing employers, etc. it's a pretty big deal, and doing nothing is not a sensible option. Not sure what you are referencing about gathering data. Data is already gathered an analyzed. Also, with the way that the wage gap is calculated most employers will do better than average and I've typically heard the adjusted gap as considerably less than 11%. You seem to be assuming discrimination, preferring action and discounting unintended consequences. I feel the opposite, so this isn't something we're going to agree on. On April 09 2014 11:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2014 10:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:What did you find interesting? The discussion over how wealth statistics are calculated and the value of non capitalized rights. "Directs the Secretary to conduct studies and provide information to employers, labor organizations, and the general public regarding the means available to eliminate pay disparities between men and women." "Amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to require the EEOC to collect from employers pay information data regarding the sex, race, and national origin of employees for use in the enforcement of federal laws prohibiting pay discrimination." "Directs: (1) the Commissioner of Labor Statistics to continue to collect data on woman workers in the Current Employment Statistics survey, (2) the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs to use specified types of methods in investigating compensation discrimination and in enforcing pay equity, and (3) the Secretary to make accurate information on compensation discrimination readily available to the public" (Helps when you read it instead of dismissing it on it's face) Source We already do a lot of data collection and dissemination. I guess this is a more pro-active stance? Is that what it does? On the gap:
If you look at the gap over time (based on methodologies that Republicans say aren't relevant when used against them) in the Obama administration, it is clearly shrinking (a trend that would be wisely followed by the rest of employers). And if the 'discrimination' gap is smaller than 11%, you are essentially saying the Obama admin is probably paying females more on parity with men.. The pay gap has been diminishing over time. Any given employer, Obama Admin. included, does't think that they are discriminating. They figure that their pay practices are justified and if there is a disparate impact they are prepared to defend their practices in court and the courts impose tough standards on those defenses. On Discrimination:
Assume, presume, in modern English are pretty interchangeable but there is a slight inferred difference so I would quarrel there (but I don't think it's that important here).
You think what happened to Lilly isn't worthy of preventative legislation/legitimate debate, I and millions of other Americans disagree. No, I didn't say that. "The problem is that rather than discuss what actually would or wouldn't be effective and compromising on something that does something to help but not too much to hurt, Republicans would rather just start yelling, shove their fingers in their ears, and vote to repeal the ACA for the umpteenth time. That's not government, it's just pathetic. You don't like Republicans. Got it. What unintended consequences are so concerning that you would let women like Lilly get treated as a second class citizen in order to prevent? I didn't comment specifically on Lilly. The law designed to remedy her situation was already passed in 2009. In the case of the Lilly Ledbetter act there was something specific Congress wanted to address - the statute of limitations on discrimination suits. That's different than addressing the pay gap in general when we don't even know what's causing it. On the Wealth article:
So did you draw any interesting conclusions or have any ideas significantly altered or substantiated as a result? Or was it just information you found interesting but not worthy of any significant note (beyond the generic sense of how wealth statistics are generally calculated)? I just read it. I haven't drawn many conclusions / ideas from it yet. It's hard to post first impressions here since the ideologs will come out and piss all over them and whatnot. We already do a lot of data collection and dissemination. I guess this is a more pro-active stance? Is that what it does?
So you're opposed to more? Or support this measure? Or do you need to know more, before you know where you stand? I'm in favor of more IF you can prove that it's useful. I'm not in favor of throwing more spaghetti at the wall in hopes that some sticks The pay gap has been diminishing over time. Any given employer, Obama Admin. included, does't think that they are discriminating. They figure that their pay practices are justified and if there is a disparate impact they are prepared to defend their practices in court and the courts impose tough standards on those defenses.
Not sure what time frame you're referring to, how about a source? You do realize you don't have to think you are discriminating in order to discriminate right? There's an important difference between 'figuring' and being. Defending a case in court doesn't only consist of protecting potentially discriminant practices. A lot of discrimination is disparate impact, meaning that you set a rule that you is appropriate for the work but unintentionally favors one or more protected class. But a disparate impact doesn't mean that the rule is unfair. For example, you can require firefighters to be strong enough to carry victims out of a fire. If women aren't typically strong enough, too bad - we need good firefighters. "What unintended consequences are so concerning that you would let women like Lilly get treated as a second class citizen in order to prevent?"
No, I didn't say that. You really haven't said much at all. But you have insinuated such. If you would/do support the legislation that would/does prevent such situations, it would fly in the face of reasonable interpretations of your comments. But if I'm wrong and you do support that legislation feel free to say so. I don't have a problem with the Lilly pay act. The problem here is that you think I'm a far right conservative and so you're filling in the blanks with whatever you think someone like that would say. The problem is that rather than discuss what actually would or wouldn't be effective and compromising on something that does something to help but not too much to hurt, Republicans would rather just start yelling, shove their fingers in their ears, and vote to repeal the ACA for the umpteenth time. That's not government, it's just pathetic."
You don't like Republicans. Got it. I don't like a lot of the ideas, but the people I try to evaluate individually. But you agree with the description of the current political situation? Sort of? Reps are doing the usual dismissal that a new whiz bang thing isn't needed and Dems are doing the usual thing of insisting that the new whiz bang thing is needed. Both sides are shitting on each other's position. What's new? I didn't comment specifically on Lilly. The law designed to remedy her situation was already passed in 2009.
In the case of the Lilly Ledbetter act there was something specific Congress wanted to address - the statute of limitations on discrimination suits. That's different than addressing the pay gap in general when we don't even know what's causing it
So you, in opposition to most right leaners, supported and continue to support that act, or at least that provision? The statute of limitations was an issue that was altered in the 2009 law. It by no means 'resolved' the multiple issues surrounding cases specifically like Lilly's let alone ones that can vary significantly in circumstances. We can agree more research needs to be done, which is one of several things legislated in the bill you earlier dismissed without reading/comprehending. There's been a lot of research already done / being done on the pay gap. You don't need a new bill for that. I just read it. I haven't drawn many conclusions / ideas from it yet. It's hard to post first impressions here since the ideologs will come out and piss all over them and whatnot. How did you come across this article? And did you read it before you posted it or after? The article was linked through one of FTAlphaville's 'Further Reading' sections. And yes I read it before I posted it, I wouldn't have said that I found it interesting otherwise. I'm not arguing for spaghetti I'm suggesting there are reasonable things we can do to help/protect Americans from criminals. And the costs (I am unaware of any substantiated and significant ones) don't outweigh the benefit of taking action. You seem to be arguing that they do. It's not the usual thing. whats different is that republicans have largely abandoned any sensible approach to legislation and compromise. Even if 'it is as it was' (which I disagree with), Republicans should step up or step out. I wish Republicans were even half as reasonable as you are seeming to be. I think Lilly does a pretty good job of explaining why your just flat wrong about the Ledbetter act. (the relevant part starts about 7:00 http://on.msnbc.com/1hexKDHArgue that you don't think the benefit of the information doesn't outweigh the cost (which you haven't evidenced makes any sense as a reason not to do it) not dismissing the whole bill. Or whatever you're trying to suggest by saying we already do it. (people wouldn't presume so much if you made a clear stance, instead of what you tend to do) I'm starting to think you just posted the article for the sake of doing it? It doesn't seem like you had any point so far? What would you like me to do for a 'clear stance'? Just water my opinion down to a support R or support D? My stance from the start has been that we need to know what's causing the remaining gap before we try to remedy it. Pretty simple kiddo. Is the new bill the Dems are pushing really going to fix the gap or is it mainly there to fire up the base? Edit: oh, and there's no conspiracy behind why I posted the article link. I thought it was interesting and relevant and I said as much. I'm not sure what you're deal is here.
Well you made it abundantly clear you didn't read the bill or comprehend my post. You just shit on the idea without knowing anything about what you're saying. You just use the old 'it's political' without even knowing what you are talking about.
I could go on about how the bill isn't intended to be a silver bullet to 'fix' the wage gap (only a simpleton would suggest so). I could try to explain to you how there are legal protections that are critical to actually being able to resolve clear discrimination cases like Lilly's. But I won't. Because you don't care. You 'know' that we need to 'know more' without even knowing what we know. We (reasonable people) know that women are still getting discriminated against and this legislation would give them some of the necessary tools to remedy the situation, but you don't comprehend that because you didn't read it before assuming it was only a 'political image issue'.
On the article I was just wondering what you actually got from it? Because the article was multiple pages and your takeaway was basically a one liner. I still haven't seen you point out anything that means much or anything making the article of any particular note.
I'm still waiting for your 'non-Marxist' interpretation (<--Your ignorance here is so funny it almost hurts) of the article or anything in it that mattered. K kiddo?
|
On April 10 2014 02:53 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 01:53 Livelovedie wrote:On April 10 2014 01:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:Healthcare is income that is cheaper for employers to give because premiums are tax deductible business expenses. So? Should businesses ramp up pay to significantly higher levels so employees could buy their own health insurance individually, guaranteeing fewer employees on the payroll? I'm not sure what impression you're trying to make with that sentence, that it's bad for businesses to save money with tax deductions from providing health insurance to their employees? I don't really get the point you are making. Health insurance benefits are not a wage and almost half of Americans with health insurance get health insurance through their employer, so the statement that the vast majority of people receive a wage-only income is false on its face. Both examples you cited don't refute his point, they just show that there are worse forms of reimbursement then per hour wage for employees. Of course they do, here's a little help for you: Wage
Often, wages. money that is paid or received for work or services, as by the hour, day, or week. If it isn't putting money in your bank account based on how many hours you work, it almost certainly is not a wage. Employer-provided health insurance is not a wage, it is a benefit. Thus, it is quite impossible for the "vast majority" of people in the US to be getting a wage-only income. How your employer paying for your health insurance with you having to pay significantly lower premiums, co-pays and deductibles than you would have to if you signed up for your own health insurance plan on your own as an individual is a bad form of reimbursement for work is a mystery that let's just admit it now you will never solve. If employer health care did not exist we would most definitely have a single-payer system by now. So yes, it is a bad thing. There, I solved it. Would you care to elaborate? As far as I'm aware when people are talking about single-payer systems they're referring to the idea that there is only one insurer,most of the time in form of the government. That has little to do with who pays part of your insurance cost,or maybe I'm just misunderstanding you. (For example here in Germany nearly everyone is publicly insured, but employers are still forced to cover half of your insurance cost.)
The American health care system was clearly broken BEFORE the ACA. More still needs to be done and the solutions Republicans were offering simply wouldn't resolve the issues. A single payer system could be far more effective than the ACA alone.
A 2010 Health Affairs study found that doctors in Ontario, a Canadian province, spent $22,205 each year dealing with the single-payer agency, compared to the $82,975 American doctors spend dealing with private insurance companies, Medicare and Medicaid.
Source
Just to be clear 'single-payer' does not mean private insurance and healthcare disappears. I don't really know where this notion comes from?
|
On April 10 2014 02:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 00:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 09 2014 15:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2014 14:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 09 2014 14:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2014 12:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 09 2014 11:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2014 11:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 09 2014 11:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2014 10:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Not really. Unless you include things like party image. Yeah there really is. I mean if it were up to Republicans, they would of left things as they were before the Fair Pay Act. Which was by any account just plain ignorant. Not surprisingly there are still issues that should be discussed/addressed. Not surprisingly Republicans are right there to stand in the way of not just action but the conversation itself. And the White House (presuming this wage gap can't be explained away like Republicans have attempted elsewhere) is a great example of how discrimination may happen without knowledge or with the opposite intention. That's one of several reasons why the information is important to gather and analyze in the first place. Side note: They used the same 'flawed' method to determine that $0.88 : $1.00 gap as the $0.77 : $1.00 So by that measure they are doing better than average! Coincidentally, the difference (~$0.11) between the two is approximately the wage gap presumed to be a result of discrimination. When it's not you being discriminated against it might not seem like a big deal and just a political "image" adjustment (given for some it might be). But for those women and the people who care about them raising families, planning for retirement, assessing employers, etc. it's a pretty big deal, and doing nothing is not a sensible option. Not sure what you are referencing about gathering data. Data is already gathered an analyzed. Also, with the way that the wage gap is calculated most employers will do better than average and I've typically heard the adjusted gap as considerably less than 11%. You seem to be assuming discrimination, preferring action and discounting unintended consequences. I feel the opposite, so this isn't something we're going to agree on. On April 09 2014 11:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2014 10:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
What did you find interesting? The discussion over how wealth statistics are calculated and the value of non capitalized rights. "Directs the Secretary to conduct studies and provide information to employers, labor organizations, and the general public regarding the means available to eliminate pay disparities between men and women." "Amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to require the EEOC to collect from employers pay information data regarding the sex, race, and national origin of employees for use in the enforcement of federal laws prohibiting pay discrimination." "Directs: (1) the Commissioner of Labor Statistics to continue to collect data on woman workers in the Current Employment Statistics survey, (2) the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs to use specified types of methods in investigating compensation discrimination and in enforcing pay equity, and (3) the Secretary to make accurate information on compensation discrimination readily available to the public" (Helps when you read it instead of dismissing it on it's face) Source We already do a lot of data collection and dissemination. I guess this is a more pro-active stance? Is that what it does? On the gap:
If you look at the gap over time (based on methodologies that Republicans say aren't relevant when used against them) in the Obama administration, it is clearly shrinking (a trend that would be wisely followed by the rest of employers). And if the 'discrimination' gap is smaller than 11%, you are essentially saying the Obama admin is probably paying females more on parity with men.. The pay gap has been diminishing over time. Any given employer, Obama Admin. included, does't think that they are discriminating. They figure that their pay practices are justified and if there is a disparate impact they are prepared to defend their practices in court and the courts impose tough standards on those defenses. On Discrimination:
Assume, presume, in modern English are pretty interchangeable but there is a slight inferred difference so I would quarrel there (but I don't think it's that important here).
You think what happened to Lilly isn't worthy of preventative legislation/legitimate debate, I and millions of other Americans disagree. No, I didn't say that. "The problem is that rather than discuss what actually would or wouldn't be effective and compromising on something that does something to help but not too much to hurt, Republicans would rather just start yelling, shove their fingers in their ears, and vote to repeal the ACA for the umpteenth time. That's not government, it's just pathetic. You don't like Republicans. Got it. What unintended consequences are so concerning that you would let women like Lilly get treated as a second class citizen in order to prevent? I didn't comment specifically on Lilly. The law designed to remedy her situation was already passed in 2009. In the case of the Lilly Ledbetter act there was something specific Congress wanted to address - the statute of limitations on discrimination suits. That's different than addressing the pay gap in general when we don't even know what's causing it. On the Wealth article:
So did you draw any interesting conclusions or have any ideas significantly altered or substantiated as a result? Or was it just information you found interesting but not worthy of any significant note (beyond the generic sense of how wealth statistics are generally calculated)? I just read it. I haven't drawn many conclusions / ideas from it yet. It's hard to post first impressions here since the ideologs will come out and piss all over them and whatnot. We already do a lot of data collection and dissemination. I guess this is a more pro-active stance? Is that what it does?
So you're opposed to more? Or support this measure? Or do you need to know more, before you know where you stand? I'm in favor of more IF you can prove that it's useful. I'm not in favor of throwing more spaghetti at the wall in hopes that some sticks The pay gap has been diminishing over time. Any given employer, Obama Admin. included, does't think that they are discriminating. They figure that their pay practices are justified and if there is a disparate impact they are prepared to defend their practices in court and the courts impose tough standards on those defenses.
Not sure what time frame you're referring to, how about a source? You do realize you don't have to think you are discriminating in order to discriminate right? There's an important difference between 'figuring' and being. Defending a case in court doesn't only consist of protecting potentially discriminant practices. A lot of discrimination is disparate impact, meaning that you set a rule that you is appropriate for the work but unintentionally favors one or more protected class. But a disparate impact doesn't mean that the rule is unfair. For example, you can require firefighters to be strong enough to carry victims out of a fire. If women aren't typically strong enough, too bad - we need good firefighters. "What unintended consequences are so concerning that you would let women like Lilly get treated as a second class citizen in order to prevent?"
No, I didn't say that. You really haven't said much at all. But you have insinuated such. If you would/do support the legislation that would/does prevent such situations, it would fly in the face of reasonable interpretations of your comments. But if I'm wrong and you do support that legislation feel free to say so. I don't have a problem with the Lilly pay act. The problem here is that you think I'm a far right conservative and so you're filling in the blanks with whatever you think someone like that would say. The problem is that rather than discuss what actually would or wouldn't be effective and compromising on something that does something to help but not too much to hurt, Republicans would rather just start yelling, shove their fingers in their ears, and vote to repeal the ACA for the umpteenth time. That's not government, it's just pathetic."
You don't like Republicans. Got it. I don't like a lot of the ideas, but the people I try to evaluate individually. But you agree with the description of the current political situation? Sort of? Reps are doing the usual dismissal that a new whiz bang thing isn't needed and Dems are doing the usual thing of insisting that the new whiz bang thing is needed. Both sides are shitting on each other's position. What's new? I didn't comment specifically on Lilly. The law designed to remedy her situation was already passed in 2009.
In the case of the Lilly Ledbetter act there was something specific Congress wanted to address - the statute of limitations on discrimination suits. That's different than addressing the pay gap in general when we don't even know what's causing it
So you, in opposition to most right leaners, supported and continue to support that act, or at least that provision? The statute of limitations was an issue that was altered in the 2009 law. It by no means 'resolved' the multiple issues surrounding cases specifically like Lilly's let alone ones that can vary significantly in circumstances. We can agree more research needs to be done, which is one of several things legislated in the bill you earlier dismissed without reading/comprehending. There's been a lot of research already done / being done on the pay gap. You don't need a new bill for that. I just read it. I haven't drawn many conclusions / ideas from it yet. It's hard to post first impressions here since the ideologs will come out and piss all over them and whatnot. How did you come across this article? And did you read it before you posted it or after? The article was linked through one of FTAlphaville's 'Further Reading' sections. And yes I read it before I posted it, I wouldn't have said that I found it interesting otherwise. I'm not arguing for spaghetti I'm suggesting there are reasonable things we can do to help/protect Americans from criminals. And the costs (I am unaware of any substantiated and significant ones) don't outweigh the benefit of taking action. You seem to be arguing that they do. It's not the usual thing. whats different is that republicans have largely abandoned any sensible approach to legislation and compromise. Even if 'it is as it was' (which I disagree with), Republicans should step up or step out. I wish Republicans were even half as reasonable as you are seeming to be. I think Lilly does a pretty good job of explaining why your just flat wrong about the Ledbetter act. (the relevant part starts about 7:00 http://on.msnbc.com/1hexKDHArgue that you don't think the benefit of the information doesn't outweigh the cost (which you haven't evidenced makes any sense as a reason not to do it) not dismissing the whole bill. Or whatever you're trying to suggest by saying we already do it. (people wouldn't presume so much if you made a clear stance, instead of what you tend to do) I'm starting to think you just posted the article for the sake of doing it? It doesn't seem like you had any point so far? What would you like me to do for a 'clear stance'? Just water my opinion down to a support R or support D? My stance from the start has been that we need to know what's causing the remaining gap before we try to remedy it. Pretty simple kiddo. Is the new bill the Dems are pushing really going to fix the gap or is it mainly there to fire up the base? Edit: oh, and there's no conspiracy behind why I posted the article link. I thought it was interesting and relevant and I said as much. I'm not sure what you're deal is here. Well you made it abundantly clear you didn't read the bill or comprehend my post. You just shit on the idea without knowing anything about what you're saying. You just use the old 'it's political' without even knowing what you are talking about. I could go on about how the bill isn't intended to be a silver bullet to 'fix' the wage gap (only a simpleton would suggest so). I could try to explain to you how there are legal protections that are critical to actually being able to resolve clear discrimination cases like Lilly's. But I won't. Because you don't care. You 'know' that we need to 'know more' without even knowing what we know. We (reasonable people) know that women are still getting discriminated against and this legislation would give them some of the necessary tools to remedy the situation, but you don't comprehend that because you didn't read it before assuming it was only a 'political image issue'. On the article I was just wondering what you actually got from it? Because the article was multiple pages and your takeaway was basically a one liner. I still haven't seen you point out anything that means much or anything making the article of any particular note. I'm still waiting for your 'non-Marxist' interpretation (<--Your ignorance here is so funny it almost hurts) of the article or anything in it that mattered. K kiddo?
I made a pretty general post on how writing new laws to combat the wage gap won't do much since we don't know what's causing it. Nothing you have posted about the new bill I didn't read counters that claim - most of what you posted had to do with studying the problem and collecting data. In Lilly's case there was something tangible to point to - a statute of limitations problem.
If you think the new bill will do some good, make a reasoned argument for it. What in the bill will do good? Why and how will it accomplish that? How does it differ from the status quo? Don't just give me the "you don't care" line.
Since it matters so much to you I'll make a post about the article later. Shit you're like a little kid on this "are we there yet, are we there yet??" Lol.
|
On April 10 2014 03:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
Just to be clear 'single-payer' does not mean private insurance and healthcare disappears. I don't really know where this notion comes from?
private healthcare delivery doesn't, private insurance basically does. That's why it's named "single payer", because there's only one institution which insures the people.
Single-payer health insurance collects all medical fees, then pays for all services, through a "single" government (or government-related) source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_health_care
|
Jim DeMint, former senator and current president of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, insisted last week that it was the U.S. Constitution that ultimately freed the slaves.
"Well the reason that the slaves were eventually freed was the Constitution, it was like the conscience of the American people," DeMint said on "Vocal Point" with Jerry Newcombe of Truth In Action Ministries, as recorded by Right Wing Watch. "Unfortunately there were some court decisions like Dred Scott and others that defined some people as property, but the Constitution kept calling us back to 'all men are created equal and we have inalienable rights' in the minds of God."
DeMint dismisses the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision, the Civil War, the Emancipation Proclamation and the Thirteenth Amendment to argue that the Constitution just ultimately led the country in the right direction.
The Heritage chief also seems to confuse the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The line "all men are created equal" comes from the latter.
DeMint added that "big government" did not end slavery, a Republican did.
Source
|
On April 10 2014 00:50 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2014 15:13 IgnE wrote:On April 09 2014 15:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 09 2014 14:55 IgnE wrote:On April 09 2014 14:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 09 2014 14:25 IgnE wrote:On April 09 2014 14:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 09 2014 13:40 IgnE wrote:On April 09 2014 13:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 09 2014 13:23 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
All workers are driven into wage-slavery. Germany isn't special in this regard. It's just special in that it's wages are depressed, relatively speaking, to those throughout Europe, even if it's workers are doing "well" because there is at least work for them to do, so they can continue paying rent to their landlords.
@ jonny
I'm sure there are others ways of interpreting his data. If he wants to argue for worker ownership and communal allocation of surplus capital, such as in a worker coop, then I am all for it. Try re-reading the article without the Marxist BS. You may just learn something  You are the one who posts it without comment. If you have a point to make it, then make it. My analysis isn't wrong. It just isn't apropos anything, since no one here has attempted to make policy claims based on the article's findings. I was preemptively responding to a Forbes editorial on it that would use it as evidence that inequality isn't a bad thing. I love how I'm getting a bunch of flak for posting an article without comment. Like no one else does that ({CC}StealthBlue). More to the point, I don't think your analysis is correct at all. Even going with your odd obsession with ownership and control, the article cites atypical ways in which workers and renters do exert control (workers elect board members as I've already cited). You seem to be either ignoring or misinterpreting points like that because they don't fall into your artificial 'worker' and 'capitalist' constructs. Hardly. Rent controls are a form of welfare. A welfare state practices state capitalism. The mode of production remains the same. It's just the owner who changes. The article does cite worker voting rights in some German corporations. If you want to argue that Germany is doing so well because the workers have more control over the surplus capital and that we should give even more control to them, such that everyone has a say in how surplus capital is redistributed, then let's hear it. If, as I think you might, you would rather say that state-directed capitalism is more efficient than this gross misappropriation of wealth to the indigent and debt-ridden that we see in "ownership societies" like the United States, then my analysis stands. I do not think that some nominal voting rights on a workers' council change the fundamental features of the worker-employer relationship. It's not a controlling interest. Workers' councils function more as labor unions than majority shares. You are overstating the difference between the atypical ways that workers and renters have control over their wages. Everyone knows that Germany and Northern Europe have stronger welfare states than other first world countries. I've said before that countries are facing a crisis in which they have to choose between welfare statism and revolution. There's nothing artificial about "worker" and "capitalist" constructs. They are simply a description of reality. Don't make the mistake of assuming that German welfare changes the capitalist mode of production in any significant way. I wasn't assuming that German welfare changes the 'capitalist mode of production' (i.e. the mode of production). And yes, 'worker' and 'capitalist' constructs are artificial. They're simplifications that gloss over large parts of reality. It's no less artificial than a modern economist simplifying people as 'rational'. It's true to a point, but only that far. No, jonny, that's a terrible analogy. It's always true that a capitalist appropriates surplus value from the labor of a worker. It's not always true that people act rationally. You are conflating an alternate, but true, description with a half-truth. To call a true description "artificial" is either a tautology, in that every description of reality is artificial, or stupid. The division of worker and capitalist is an abstraction as people are usually both. So yes, it's an artificial separation that gets blurred in the real world. Edit: Don't pretend like some small-time middle class career manager who owns a stock portfolio means anything. The vast majority of people receive a wage-only income (supplemented with government redistribution). Saying that people are usually both is an obfuscatory truth that misses the forest for the trees. Luckily for you, I don't really care to classify every individual as capitalist or prole, to pass judgment, and then to sentence them to some fate. I care more about capital and the organization of the mode of production, both of which are very real. On April 09 2014 15:06 zlefin wrote:
Igne, whatever you're saying; it isn't and hasn't been coming across clearly to my eye. Not sure if it's a result of using different definitions for words, or what. Yes, probably. According to the Kaiser Foundation 48% of people (in 2012) with health insurance in the US get it from their employer. So no, the vast majority of people do not receive a wage-only income. If you consider a salary to be different from a wage income (pre-set amount of money you make in a certain amount of time, not X dollars per hour times Y hours worked), then it is probably the case is just the opposite: that the vast majority of people do not receive a wage-only income.
They receive a wage-only income and then are provided non-transferable benefits in the form of services. You can't reproduce the value of your insurance by turning it into capital and investing it. You don't seem to grasp the basic point here, which is not surprising, and would rather play silly semantic games. Wages (including salaries) are the only source of moneyed income most people get other than maybe some government welfare programs.
|
On April 10 2014 03:41 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 03:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
Just to be clear 'single-payer' does not mean private insurance and healthcare disappears. I don't really know where this notion comes from?
private healthcare delivery doesn't, private insurance basically does. That's why it's named "single payer", because there's only one institution which insures the people. Show nested quote +Single-payer health insurance collects all medical fees, then pays for all services, through a "single" government (or government-related) source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_health_care
Except it doesn't....
I guess if people are getting their understanding of 'single-payer' from wiki, I suppose that helps explain why they would be so misinformed.
What countries are you thinking of where private insurance has 'basically disappeared'? You might want to mention how/if it has negatively impacted healthcare too. Either way the elimination of private insurers is clearly not a requirement of a 'single-payer' system.
|
Jim Demint is quite a funny fellow, thank the Lord he works for Heritage now and can practically hurt no one.
|
On April 10 2014 04:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 03:41 Nyxisto wrote:On April 10 2014 03:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
Just to be clear 'single-payer' does not mean private insurance and healthcare disappears. I don't really know where this notion comes from?
private healthcare delivery doesn't, private insurance basically does. That's why it's named "single payer", because there's only one institution which insures the people. Single-payer health insurance collects all medical fees, then pays for all services, through a "single" government (or government-related) source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_health_care Except it doesn't.... I guess if people are getting their understanding of 'single-payer' from wiki, I suppose that helps explain why they would be so misinformed. What countries are you thinking of where private insurance has 'basically disappeared'? You might want to mention how/if it has negatively impacted healthcare too. Either way the elimination of private insurers is clearly not a requirement of a 'single-payer' system.
Canada, Australia, the UK and France(with the exception of some non-profit insurers) among others.
You might want to mention how/if it has negatively impacted healthcare too
No, I don't. I think single-payer healthcare is great. But switching to such a system will still mean that private, profit oriented insurance is bound to go away,it's called single payer for a reason.Which also is the reason why the opposition to it in the US is so incredibly large. Switching to a single-payer system basically means you're turning the healthcare system from a profit oriented business into a service that's supposed to help the people and pay for itself, which will probably make Repbulicans bleed out of their ears.
|
On April 10 2014 04:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 03:41 Nyxisto wrote:On April 10 2014 03:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
Just to be clear 'single-payer' does not mean private insurance and healthcare disappears. I don't really know where this notion comes from?
private healthcare delivery doesn't, private insurance basically does. That's why it's named "single payer", because there's only one institution which insures the people. Single-payer health insurance collects all medical fees, then pays for all services, through a "single" government (or government-related) source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_health_care Except it doesn't.... I guess if people are getting their understanding of 'single-payer' from wiki, I suppose that helps explain why they would be so misinformed. What countries are you thinking of where private insurance has 'basically disappeared'? You might want to mention how/if it has negatively impacted healthcare too. Either way the elimination of private insurers is clearly not a requirement of a 'single-payer' system.
How are you going to have multiple payers in a single payer system?
|
On April 10 2014 04:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 04:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2014 03:41 Nyxisto wrote:On April 10 2014 03:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
Just to be clear 'single-payer' does not mean private insurance and healthcare disappears. I don't really know where this notion comes from?
private healthcare delivery doesn't, private insurance basically does. That's why it's named "single payer", because there's only one institution which insures the people. Single-payer health insurance collects all medical fees, then pays for all services, through a "single" government (or government-related) source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_health_care Except it doesn't.... I guess if people are getting their understanding of 'single-payer' from wiki, I suppose that helps explain why they would be so misinformed. What countries are you thinking of where private insurance has 'basically disappeared'? You might want to mention how/if it has negatively impacted healthcare too. Either way the elimination of private insurers is clearly not a requirement of a 'single-payer' system. How are you going to have multiple payers in a single payer system?
I don't understand it either, the name kind of gives it away.
|
On April 10 2014 03:54 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Jim DeMint, former senator and current president of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, insisted last week that it was the U.S. Constitution that ultimately freed the slaves.
"Well the reason that the slaves were eventually freed was the Constitution, it was like the conscience of the American people," DeMint said on "Vocal Point" with Jerry Newcombe of Truth In Action Ministries, as recorded by Right Wing Watch. "Unfortunately there were some court decisions like Dred Scott and others that defined some people as property, but the Constitution kept calling us back to 'all men are created equal and we have inalienable rights' in the minds of God."
DeMint dismisses the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision, the Civil War, the Emancipation Proclamation and the Thirteenth Amendment to argue that the Constitution just ultimately led the country in the right direction.
The Heritage chief also seems to confuse the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The line "all men are created equal" comes from the latter.
DeMint added that "big government" did not end slavery, a Republican did. Source
I'm not sure what the point of the article is- any way you slice it, the Constitution DID end slavery, just not immediately. It could have continued far longer without it.
Either you count the 13th amendment, "preserving the union," or the Constitutional mechanics in place through Congress (including the provision to allow Congress to halt slave importation), it did lead there. Though admittedly the Dred Scott decision was disastrous in this regard. But that's what happens when justices get the final say, and it's widely regarded as one of the worst decisions ever. So that really doesn't argue against his point, either.
Only a dense person would assume that Demint meant "The 1787 Constitution banned slavery."
|
On April 10 2014 04:23 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 04:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2014 03:41 Nyxisto wrote:On April 10 2014 03:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
Just to be clear 'single-payer' does not mean private insurance and healthcare disappears. I don't really know where this notion comes from?
private healthcare delivery doesn't, private insurance basically does. That's why it's named "single payer", because there's only one institution which insures the people. Single-payer health insurance collects all medical fees, then pays for all services, through a "single" government (or government-related) source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_health_care Except it doesn't.... I guess if people are getting their understanding of 'single-payer' from wiki, I suppose that helps explain why they would be so misinformed. What countries are you thinking of where private insurance has 'basically disappeared'? You might want to mention how/if it has negatively impacted healthcare too. Either way the elimination of private insurers is clearly not a requirement of a 'single-payer' system. Canada, Australia, the UK and France(with the exception of some non-profit insurers) among others. No, I don't. I think single-payer healthcare is great. But switching to such a system will still mean that private, profit oriented insurance is bound to go away,it's called single payer for a reason.Which also is the reason why the opposition to it in the US is so incredibly large. Switching to a single-payer system basically means you're turning the healthcare system from a profit oriented business into a service that's supposed to help the people and pay for itself, which will probably make Repbulicans bleed out of their ears.
uhhmmmmmm....
Citizens with private insurance:
Canada: about 66%
Australia: about 50%
France: nearly 90%
UK: 10%
Your premise is inescapably flawed.
I mean your best argument from those you listed would be the UK (I'm guessing you didn't know anything about the french healthcare system before you made those assumptions) but 10% is still pretty far from gone. But let's not get lost in the weeds.
You see that the notion that 'single-payer' necessitates the elimination of private insurers is simply mistaken.
I'm not sure if people just call things single-payer that aren't or the meaning of the word is just not what most people think when they hear it. Either way, the common understanding by people like you and Johnny is just wrong.
How are you going to have multiple payers in a single payer system?
I used to think you might not be as dense as you come off sometimes, but I'm starting to second guess myself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/re/2011/d/images/MedianEarnings.png)
