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.
The people who have money to squander are great at making rules for the peasants and hired help. Put them in lockdown while they travel by private jet. Sounds like a plan.
Except it is really the ones with little money controlling the rule makers - wasn't that part of the idea of Biden and Pelosi? Also, everyone was in lockdown - that was the doing of Fauchi and the CDC - and mostly it was the blue areas that keept the lockdowns well after they were needed to maintain the power to control.
It was the "peasansts and hired help" as you put it that voted for these guys and also benefited greatly in lockdown - they got the big portion of the COVID stuff - the relief payments, enhanced unemployement that allowed many to make more than when working. You did not get a pass from lockdowns and no relief payments if you made just a little more than average and was at a level that is far from wealthy in many areas.
Except it is really the ones with little money controlling the rule makers - wasn't that part of the idea of Biden and Pelosi? Also, everyone was in lockdown - that was the doing of Fauchi and the CDC - and mostly it was the blue areas that keept the lockdowns well after they were needed to maintain the power to control.
It was the "peasansts and hired help" as you put it that voted for these guys and also benefited greatly in lockdown - they got the big portion of the COVID stuff - the relief payments, enhanced unemployement that allowed many to make more than when working. You did not get a pass from lockdowns and no relief payments if you made just a little more than average and was at a level that is far from wealthy in many areas.
I am talking about the soft lockdown planned for the future, when the masses will no longer be above to afford cars and/or to drive.
As far as the Covid lockdowns I agree with you to an extent. The giveaways made it tolerable to some. But Newsome and Cuomo's life did not become dreadfully boring as a result of Covid lockdowns. In fact, quite the contrary. In my village the municipal tennis courts were illogically locked (for obvious reasons you do not play tennis within swatting range of other players) but I doubt they padlocked their backyard tennis courts.
The point was that it was a pretty small salary and times were tough then - and you seem to not know or want to dismiss it but inflation was 2-3x what it is today and wages did not keep up. Gas, for example, went up to 4x what it was just a few years earlier. Housing was expensive because mortgages were 18%.
Also not a time of peace - that was cold war times and I spent 30 years in the military so for me, far from peaceful but no one has been drafted in over 40 years so not really an issue today. I also deal with the costs of college for my kids (one graduates this year) and they are not any big jump from what they were 40 years ago if you are smart about it. I have a bachelors and 2 masters (all from top 5 schools) - learning is important and is required for many jobs - it was for mine. You do not have to get a degree if you don't want it - really.
I think you have little knowledge of what was happening then because you seem to think it was so much better - every era has it's issues. Most of the rest is just a rant that belongs on another forum.
You're arguing with a straw man. As a I mentioned, I don't think that for the average person life has gotten harder in the last several decades -- after the end of the Vietnam War draft in the United States has been one of the best times and places to enter adulthood in human history. What does matter in making things easier or harder is the precise year - much better for getting a career started to be a '12 grad than an '08 grad, a '21 grad rather than a '20 grad, and so forth.
In terms of college costs not jumping in 40 years .... from what I've seen they've jumped a lot in the much shorter time since I graduated so we just have a disagreement on facts there.
The needing a degree thing is not so simple. A lot more people going to colleges has caused many employers to demand degrees to enter fields where they previously were not needed. These jobs generally are not as good as traditional college requiring employment but better than the stuff still available to others. So while average real earnings growth has happened overall, if you decompose by education level they are flat for non graduates and positive but weak for graduates. You can't always opt out of an arms race.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EDS_
Ease some zoning restrictions and no build zones - check
Stop requiring degrees for some jobs/telling every kid to go to college - check
Tackle monopoly pricing problems per drugs and hospital services - no, these sectors are not examples of monopolies nor does any company in the space have monopolistic pricing power, nor does anyone in the sector show monopolistic behaviors......Pharma Bro. Shkreli (sp?) tried and the yield is he went to prison, although IIRC he was actually jailed for securities fraud.
*There is a tiny asterisk - there are some examples of companies producing a drug out of or sometimes long out of patent and drastically increasing prices as they are the sole maker. Good arguments may be made this kind of thing is an example of monopolistic pricing power at least in the short run. It's a complex economic play but this kind of thing only happens:
A. Over the short run
B. Because of FDA rules and......
C. Because the FDA/lawyers/OSHA/insane tax policy/expensive and often not so good labor etc.
_________________
I know the CEO of a very large Pharma company a little, through golf, his co's. margins across drug items, after regulatory, legal, rights fees, R&D, talent, IT, CapEx etc. etc. are about as terrible as the airlines. I mean shockingly low.
The idea these's companies regularly sell pills and elixirs with combined hard and soft costs of $X for $5000X is rubbish.
Most hospitals and drugs by service are not monopoly priced, but a huge amount of the dollars we spend on healthcare go to the ones that are.
In terms of hospitals, where there is local competition prices (when not capitated at a percent of premium or some other value based care arrangement) are usually set based on a fixed fee schedule or a percent of what Medicare pays reached through negotiation between the hospital and insurer. When a hospital chain gets enough market share overall or in key services locally they get to demand whatever rate they want because a network would be unable to provide care without them and in this scenario will often demand a rate based on a percent of their billed charges which without a local monopoly no one would ever agree to pay. Chargemasters are limited only by shame and some hospital executives have none, it's not unheard of for charges to be 10x costs which then hits the uninsured and anywhere they have managed to use being needed to have an adequate network to force a billed charges contract. Still, locally dominant hospital aren't the worst culprits of driving medical costs using monopoly pricing, that would be....
On drugs, when there are multiple competitors and regulation does not require everyone to be on formulary, the PBMs (who negotiate on behalf of insurers because the only entities large enough to get real leverage against Pharma are Caremark/Optum/Express Scripts/maybe CarelonRx) are able to very effectively managed drug prices by forcing companies to bid against eachother for formulary placement. If you are counting by scripts instead of dollars, this is the vast majority of drugs and I am sure the margins aren't out of line here. The problem comes in where government regulation restricts formulary management or where there are no alternatives for drugs which a P&T committee can't morally justify taking off formulary at which point the manufacturer gets to name any price they want because there is no ability of the PBMs or insurers to say no regardless of the number -- these drugs are referred to in the industry as 'specialty' drugs and over the last few decades this has been where the worst of the inflation in both Pharma and medical spending more broadly has been.
All of this then gets passed through to employers as higher premiums which consumes compensation dollars that otherwise could have funded wages or to workers as higher copays and deductibles, and (on the drug side but not the hospital side except on the ACA plans) to taxpayers paying more than they otherwise would have to to fund Medicare/Medicaid/ACA subsidies.
I am talking about the soft lockdown planned for the future, when the masses will no longer be above to afford cars and/or to drive.
As far as the Covid lockdowns I agree with you to an extent. The giveaways made it tolerable to some. But Newsome and Cuomo's life did not become dreadfully boring as a result of Covid lockdowns. In fact, quite the contrary. In my village the municipal tennis courts were illogically locked (for obvious reasons you do not play tennis within swatting range of other players) but I doubt they padlocked their backyard tennis courts.
So talking about something that will likely never happen - and that voters should be able to retaliate against if it does - really not something to complain about.
They did try to limit the ability to use your own property - the extent of lockdowns was stupid - they did try to stop things like gatherings at your house so yes you have a court but no body to play with potentially.
You're arguing with a straw man. As a I mentioned, I don't think that for the average person life has gotten harder in the last several decades -- after the end of the Vietnam War draft in the United States has been one of the best times and places to enter adulthood in human history. What does matter in making things easier or harder is the precise year - much better for getting a career started to be a '12 grad than an '08 grad, a '21 grad rather than a '20 grad, and so forth.
In terms of college costs not jumping in 40 years .... from what I've seen they've jumped a lot in the much shorter time since I graduated so we just have a disagreement on facts there.
The needing a degree thing is not so simple. A lot more people going to colleges has caused many employers to demand degrees to enter fields where they previously were not needed. These jobs generally are not as good as traditional college requiring employment but better than the stuff still available to others. So while average real earnings growth has happened overall, if you decompose by education level they are flat for non graduates and positive but weak for graduates. You can't always opt out of an arms race.
Naw it is you just ignoring the real issues and the reality that and just after the vietnam war was really not one of the best times because of inflation and other issues.
Again, it is how you get your degree that makes it expensive or not - the actual tuition has gone up but more availability of State schools with fairly low tuition. The big rise in costs is the private schools and the trend to going to a school away from home.
The need for a degree is very simple get it if you want but don't complain about the expense and keep the costs low - you can get a good job without a degree. It is up to you whether the cost is worth it but then YOU pay, not everyone else because it was YOUR choice.
So talking about something that will likely never happen - and that voters should be able to retaliate against if it does - really not something to complain about.
I don't see in what way it's unlikely to happen. The CARB rules are slated to take effect in 2035, and people make their vehicle purchases well in advance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddeemo
They did try to limit the ability to use your own property - the extent of lockdowns was stupid - they did try to stop things like gatherings at your house so yes you have a court but no body to play with potentially.
Solitary confinement for no crime except affluence. The virus wasn't going away no matter how long people were forced to cower.
I looked at your link and although it sounds good at first blush, their idea of full time and part time needs to be scrutinized. To me, part time is 20 hrs a week or less and full time is 35 hrs. If you have to work 30+ hours a week to get part time benefits, it doesn't seem like a big advantage.
Maybe the military is better but only for younger folks?
This causes the natural lifecycles of a nation. When wealth concentrates too much the system collapses as the middle is priced out. This is happening gradually as people being priced out of real estate ownership as the power structure continues to allow the rich to buy up all the land and housing. Once you get high levels of liquidity this gives you an advantage over everyone else. This is especially true when you have modern monetary theorists recklessly creating trillions out of thin air to pump up stonk prices and try to prevent recessions entirely. That money usually funnels up to the top 10% pretty quickly. Trying to print our way out of our problems is what will lead to the collapse.
Glad to see you see the problem, OP. Watch this video:
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.
