Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
you know what? i support the welfare state. people deserve a decent life even if they're dumb and lazy.
BUT.... a welfare state will only work if we can stop intergenerational welfare recipients from propagating their progeny and creating an ever growing pool of dependents
what i mean to say is welfare mamas need to stop droppin' crotch dumplings left and right otherwise the system will fail
The US actually has the best opportunities for economic mobility in the world (which is why all the foreign poor greatly prefer to immigrate to the US if they can, and Europeans come to the US for grad schools, often as the only way to attain a better career when they return home). The reason for bad economic mobility in the US is not the lack of opportunity, but the lack of desire by the poor to pursue opportunity, as it is easier to accept a welfare handout. For example, the US welfare system incentivizes dropping out of high school to have a kid as a teenager by paying support for having a kid instead for finishing school.
You say that you want the US to have universal healthcare, but you don't think it should be a poverty program - but with half of the population unable to pay the contribution to universal healthcare, it can only be a poverty program in the US, and as such it will remain expensive for those who do pay into it, regardless whether you have multiple insurers or a single national one.
You're another "no we can't," but I think we're capable of more than you think. You seem to be saying that Europe has better poor people than the US, but I think you're naive and thinking in terms of stereotypes that are based on little personal experience with actual people. This isn't the place to discuss welfare, but Europe's got that too. Again, the poor largely receive free healthcare in the US already.
The US actually has the best opportunities for economic mobility in the world (which is why all the foreign poor greatly prefer to immigrate to the US if they can, and Europeans come to the US for grad schools, often as the only way to attain a better career when they return home). The reason for bad economic mobility in the US is not the lack of opportunity, but the lack of desire by the poor to pursue opportunity, as it is easier to accept a welfare handout. For example, the US welfare system incentivizes dropping out of high school to have a kid as a teenager by paying support for having a kid instead for finishing school.
You say that you want the US to have universal healthcare, but you don't think it should be a poverty program - but with half of the population unable to pay the contribution to universal healthcare, it can only be a poverty program in the US, and as such it will remain expensive for those who do pay into it, regardless whether you have multiple insurers or a single national one.
I'd strongly argue that the US welfare system doesn't "incentivize" dropping out of school to get pregnant--I went through the US public school system and those who dropped out from pregnancy did not do it as a conscious design because they were calculating the economic trade-off of having a kid as a teenager. Just think over that last bit for as a second and how ridiculous that sounds and how Occam's Razor could lead to to far easier explanations for teens dropping out for pregnancy. Usually it involved lack of thought, knowledge, and ready access to birth control (which healthcare could provide!).
The US actually has the best opportunities for economic mobility in the world (which is why all the foreign poor greatly prefer to immigrate to the US if they can, and Europeans come to the US for grad schools, often as the only way to attain a better career when they return home). The reason for bad economic mobility in the US is not the lack of opportunity, but the lack of desire by the poor to pursue opportunity, as it is easier to accept a welfare handout. For example, the US welfare system incentivizes dropping out of high school to have a kid as a teenager by paying support for having a kid instead for finishing school.
You say that you want the US to have universal healthcare, but you don't think it should be a poverty program - but with half of the population unable to pay the contribution to universal healthcare, it can only be a poverty program in the US, and as such it will remain expensive for those who do pay into it, regardless whether you have multiple insurers or a single national one.
These two sentences. You're totally missing the picture of how the US has become a plutocracy. Many politicians no longer give a single f about the 99% and blatantly show that in the legislation they impose on us.
I have a novel idea here. Raise the minimum wage to match inflation. All these old farts talking about oh back in my day I made X amount of dollars flipping burgers. Yeah great that equates to far more than the minimum wage is today when considering inflation and COL changes. Also, look at the debt millennials are burdened with from going to college. It affects our disposable income and the economy as whole, and that was done by generations older than us who now financially benefit from our debt.
Also, look at all the unpaid internships out there. That would affect economic mobility. Internships are often required to land god jobs. However, if you come from poverty, your family can't support you while you work an unpaid internship to build up your resume. Wealthy families can support their children and invest in their future more. Also, CEOs and managers refuse to pay employees with degrees a good salary. For lawyers, I saw many job postings in NJ and NYC that paid $35k-55k. That's nearly impossible to live on here. And public defenders, legal aid attorneys, and prosecutors offices often pay that or even less.
So, ya know, maybe if people made more money in general instead of a select few plutocrats stealing all the wealth, more people could pay into the universal healthcare system. Or if they refuse to pay people a living wage, then it should be their duty and responsibility to repay that through taxes. Why should so many Walmart employees have to receive government benefits when the Walton family has more money than anyone would even know what to do with? Why should MNCs be paying zero or even NEGATIVE taxes--as in, they RECEIVE our tax money. For what?
The simple fact that older generations talk about millennials being needy and unprepared by citing the fact they bought homes on salaries from high school education is testament enough to how times have change. Back then, companies cared for their employees. They provided them with good benefits and pensions. They made enough money that families could have only one income and live comfortably. Now, that's almost impossible. The employees didn't change--the companies and their greed changed.
These two sentences. You're totally missing the picture of how the US has become a plutocracy. Many politicians no longer give a single f about the 99% and blatantly show that in the legislation they impose on us.
I have a novel idea here. Raise the minimum wage to match inflation. All these old farts talking about oh back in my day I made X amount of dollars flipping burgers. Yeah great that equates to far more than the minimum wage is today when considering inflation and COL changes. Also, look at the debt millennials are burdened with from going to college. It affects our disposable income and the economy as whole, and that was done by generations older than us who now financially benefit from our debt.
Also, look at all the unpaid internships out there. That would affect economic mobility. Internships are often required to land god jobs. However, if you come from poverty, your family can't support you while you work an unpaid internship to build up your resume. Wealthy families can support their children and invest in their future more. Also, CEOs and managers refuse to pay employees with degrees a good salary. For lawyers, I saw many job postings in NJ and NYC that paid $35k-55k. That's nearly impossible to live on here. And public defenders, legal aid attorneys, and prosecutors offices often pay that or even less.
So, ya know, maybe if people made more money in general instead of a select few plutocrats stealing all the wealth, more people could pay into the universal healthcare system. Or if they refuse to pay people a living wage, then it should be their duty and responsibility to repay that through taxes. Why should so many Walmart employees have to receive government benefits when the Walton family has more money than anyone would even know what to do with? Why should MNCs be paying zero or even NEGATIVE taxes--as in, they RECEIVE our tax money. For what?
The simple fact that older generations talk about millennials being needy and unprepared by citing the fact they bought homes on salaries from high school education is testament enough to how times have change. Back then, companies cared for their employees. They provided them with good benefits and pensions. They made enough money that families could have only one income and live comfortably. Now, that's almost impossible. The employees didn't change--the companies and their greed changed.
I agree with much of what you said:
What I see missing in the young men and woman of today is the
enthusiasm which I believe is the most important part of the equation.
For example:
Unlike the sweat equity invested by the older generation. They built the roads,the buildings,the stores that are still in use across the entire country today. The times have changed. You have luxury like telephones and central air. Back then, many gathered in town to watch T.V. No one owned a car and you were wealthy if you owned a phone. Air Conditioning? Open a window for Lord Sake; and yet they all seemed to work their arses off to eventually own a home. It is still the same today.If you really want something bad you must work,work ,work for it. Hard work!
Companies have always been greedy and even more so today but you have the fortune of at least sitting in an air conditioned office and driving to work. The old timers have not.
When your child can turn around and ask mommy "where is daddy" because he's working around the clock then
you can truly understand how the old timers lived. A decent living is acquired through the knuckle busting daily grind of hard work..............plain and simple. This can be accomplished in today's society. Just work dammit.Work!
Quick back of the envelope calculation - the crappiest of crappiest insurance plans cost what, like $350 per month? 300K people x $350 x 12 months is $1.26 BILLION per year in additional city expenses
Who the F*** does this giant doofus think he is
I think NYC taxpayers have some very solid grounds for a major lawsuit here
As a larger group policy, you try to negotiate the per capita rate down. I’m not saying the mayor’s plan will work, but there are reasons and sensible actions that can be taken which explain why health insurance per person in other developed countries is so very much less expensive.
I agree with much of what you said:
What I see missing in the young men and woman of today is the
enthusiasm which I believe is the most important part of the equation.
For example:
Unlike the sweat equity invested by the older generation. They built the roads,the buildings,the stores that are still in use across the entire country today. The times have changed. You have luxury like telephones and central air. Back then, many gathered in town to watch T.V. No one owned a car and you were wealthy if you owned a phone. Air Conditioning? Open a window for Lord Sake; and yet they all seemed to work their arses off to eventually own a home. It is still the same today.If you really want something bad you must work,work ,work for it. Hard work!
Companies have always been greedy and even more so today but you have the fortune of at least sitting in an air conditioned office and driving to work. The old timers have not.
When your child can turn around and ask mommy "where is daddy" because he's working around the clock then
you can truly understand how the old timers lived. A decent living is acquired through the knuckle busting daily grind of hard work..............plain and simple. This can be accomplished in today's society. Just work dammit.Work!
Do you not have children? The job market for a large proportion of decent and not even well paying jobs generally prefer those with a college degree. In the long ago past of your generation, a fairly menial part time job could cover the cost of tuition, but that hasn’t been the case for a long time. In addition to that, the cost of home ownership, not just in NYC, but pretty much across the US has gone up considerably while working hours and productivity have not. You’re mentioning luxuries like AC and smartphones (which at this point are almost necessary for functioning in the modern economy) but those are a pittance compared to some much more basic costs like housing and debt servicing that degree. Your old timer example of kids asking where daddy is quaint—now raising a child costs you both parents at work and your child in daycare. You need to update your internal model of just what the differences actually are between generations.
I agree with much of what you said:
What I see missing in the young men and woman of today is the
enthusiasm which I believe is the most important part of the equation.
For example:
Unlike the sweat equity invested by the older generation. They built the roads,the buildings,the stores that are still in use across the entire country today. The times have changed. You have luxury like telephones and central air. Back then, many gathered in town to watch T.V. No one owned a car and you were wealthy if you owned a phone. Air Conditioning? Open a window for Lord Sake; and yet they all seemed to work their arses off to eventually own a home. It is still the same today.If you really want something bad you must work,work ,work for it. Hard work!
Companies have always been greedy and even more so today but you have the fortune of at least sitting in an air conditioned office and driving to work. The old timers have not.
When your child can turn around and ask mommy "where is daddy" because he's working around the clock then
you can truly understand how the old timers lived. A decent living is acquired through the knuckle busting daily grind of hard work..............plain and simple. This can be accomplished in today's society. Just work dammit.Work!
We do want to work. However, the economy of the US has changed. We are a nation of white collar jobs and service industry jobs...because those greedy corporations moved manufacturing jobs oversees. The Rust Belt didn't ASK their companies to move the plants away. It is no longer possible to graduate from high school and go work in a manufacturing plant and get full benefits for you and your family from your employer who pays you enough to buy a home on that single income you earn while your spouse stays home and raises children.
We want more infrastructure built. The younger generations are dying for more public transit and housing they can afford. We have plenty of people who worked manufacturing/labor jobs that are unemployed and could benefit from massive government spending on infrastructure like we did with they highway systems before. Now I know you'll say "government spending is bad" but it worked back then. And also, paying more people a livable wage will spur economic growth. The person earning a wage from the government who builds subway tracks and high speed rail tunnels can afford a comfortable home and will have more disposable income to contribute back into the economy. The money they invest back into the economy will spur growth.
Children are no longer asking mommy "where is daddy" because mommy is also working. Both parents work and still can't provide for their families the way one parent could back in the day. Also, now that both parents are working, childcare costs are required.
Companies may have been greedy before, but they're even worse, and we have politicians on both sides (though more on the right) who will gladly sell out the American people for political donations from large corporations. Our government no longer cares about the people; politicians spread lies and propaganda propelled by their corporate donors and those statements stick with people. However, those policies are directly detrimental the economic and personal well-being of most Americans. So no, it's not the companies are inherently worse today, but they have been able to buy politicians much more easily and get their personal agendas through government without regard for their employees and the American public.
Also, in regards to companies being greedy, they require Bachelor's degrees for menial entry level jobs that previously would have been for high school grads. So you have to go into debt to work a menial job for menial pay with barely any benefits. Then, often, those companies also like you to have internships, but none of them will pay their interns. And if they do, it's often minimum wage or just over it. Whereas before, Americans could support an entire family on a high school education, we now need years of unpaid internships and expensive college degrees to work those same jobs for less pay when adjusted for COL and worse benefits.
Then the argument comes "well learn a trade and do labor work and you can have good pay and benefits without a college degree." Great argument. However, not everyone can handle the physical labor required. Also, the same people touting trade/labor jobs are often the people who are strongly anti-union. The only reason those jobs pay so well and have good benefits is because of supportive unions. Without unions, blue-collar workers would not be as protected as they currently are. So it's hypocritical to both push people to join a workforce strongly supported by labor unions, but then espouse anti-union rhetoric and vote in politicians who wish to strip union's of their rights and make it harder for unions to protect their own workers.
To tie this all back into the theme of this thread:
Tl;dr -- Companies aren't paying their fare share in taxes nor are they paying their employees fairly. Therefore, Americans are not as financially well-off or even as stable as we were decades ago. While I understand many have concerns about this individual proposal by De Blasio, the root of many of these problems De Blasio and other progressive politicians are trying to solve can be traced back to corporate greed and unfettered capitalism with no regard for the employees and American citizens.
there are reasons and sensible actions that can be taken which explain why health insurance per person in other developed countries is so very much less expensive.
It's the highest here primarily because of unregulated prescription drug prices and to a lesser extent tort lawsuits & insurance as well as eating loses on uninsured patients
But how is this different from the sliding scale from NYC Health? Everyone who lives in the city (natural born, naturalized, legal resident or undocumented) and can't get insurance qualifies and they charge you according to income. How is this plan different?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
