US Politics - The Conceit of Not Conceding

[OldGimletEye]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Fez has raised a lot of points I would have already, but the biggest one I want to emphasis is norms. It’s what people expect. If you take it away and provide a public option, you create a new norm and people won’t really understand how they’re getting less overall. 

I think once they are not getting healthcare from their employer, they will understand they are getting less from that employer.

[Fez]

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

But, given, the low state worker bargaining power, you still fail to explain why employers give healthcare benefits at all, when those benefits do incur costs.

It's a relic of the past, from when bargaining power was stronger (and some changes in the tax code back in the '40s made it so valuable to employers to offer coverage instead of raises). A holdover that is slowly being chipped away each year. It's so visible and obvious (and important) to employees that simply taking it away entirely might provoke conditions for a revolution (at least, a Sanders-style one, maybe not a French/Russian one). And the costs are more-or-less known (depending on how much the rates go up each year) and accounted for, so businesses are used to them and can basically stomach them (albeit with slowly shifting more and more of the burden onto the employees). 

If the windfall of a system transformation comes through, maybe employers end up giving a 2% or 3% raise. Maybe. But they'll count on employees to not know the true costs that are being relieved, or at least not have the ability to pushback, and will pocket the vast majority of the savings.

[Kalbear]

Russia didn't hack the 2020 election and for the most part didn't try. Part of that is that the US did a better job of counterattacking. Part was fear of more reprisals. But another amusing part is that the US did an absolutely amazing job of disinformation, wildly dwarfing what Russia could do. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/russia-failed-to-mount-major-election-interference-operations-in-2020-analysts-say/2020/11/16/72c62b0c-1880-11eb-82db-60b15c874105_story.html?utm_campaign=wp_politics_am&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_politics&_gl=1*1o0zejy*_ga*aUJLaFpvQTBFSTU4eEhFanRyYnZ5RVhtZFZvYjJOeWQ3MjlCaGluRFZieVpwaEdhLWhjQjZfdWZxek1PbTB3WA..

[Padraig]

8 minutes ago, Toth said:

I was always thinking a lot of them like the idea of having this much leverage over their employees by having them dependent on their insurance. Isn't that it?

I don't understand this whole argument.  I'm sure I am missing something about how things are done in the US.

Instead of paying an employee's health coverage, why can't the employer pay a tax direct to the government (based on its number of employees) to cover health?  That's how a lot of countries work.

I'm sure implementation would be more complicated but that basic idea is simple.  (Yes, some companies would say it can't afford to pay more taxes but that's an implementation question).

[OldGimletEye]

17 minutes ago, Fez said:

It's a relic of the past, from when bargaining power was stronger (and some changes in the tax code back in the '40s made it so valuable to employers to offer coverage instead of raises). A holdover that is slowly being chipped away each year. It's so visible and obvious (and important) to employees that simply taking it away entirely might provoke conditions for a revolution (at least, a Sanders-style one, maybe not a French/Russian one). And the costs are more-or-less known (depending on how much the rates go up each year) and accounted for, so businesses are used to them and can basically stomach them (albeit with slowly shifting more and more of the burden onto the employees). 

If the windfall of a system transformation comes through, maybe employers end up giving a 2% or 3% raise. Maybe. But they'll count on employees to not know the true costs that are being relieved, or at least not have the ability to pushback, and will pocket the vast majority of the savings.

Suppose I'm an employer, that has some degree of monopsony power. I face a profit maximization condition that looks something like (not exactly like, but close enough):

p*df(L*,K)/dL = w(L*), where p is the price of output on the market, L* is the optimal amount of labor, df()/dL is the marginal product of real output, and w(L) is a wage, where w' or dw/dL is increasing in L, labor.

If pdf(L*,K)/dL > w(L), I'm not maximizing my profit. I maximize my profits by employing more labor, until my marginal revenue, in this case pdf(L*,K)/dL equals my marginal cost w(L).

[OldGimletEye]

The broader point is that if the marginal value of the last employee is Z, and his compensation is wages, X, and healthcare benefits Y, if the firm is attempting to maximize its profits it should be at a condition that looks ball park like:

Z = X + Y.

If Z > X, because Y just goes away, the employer has incentive to hire more labor until Z = X. That should put upward pressure on wages, X.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

45 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I think once they are not getting healthcare from their employer, they will understand they are getting less from that employer.

But you’re still relying on the altruism of many business given that labor lacks a lot of power. I’m also factoring a lot of the nightmares facing labor in the years to come, and COVID is only speeding that up. As jobs become scarce, business will be able to offer less for middle and lower positions.

[OldGimletEye]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

But you’re still relying on the altruism of many business given that labor lacks a lot of power. I’m also factoring a lot of the nightmares facing labor in the years to come, and COVID is only speeding that up. As jobs become scarce, business will be able to offer less for middle and lower positions.

Seems like a great argument to decouple healthcare from employers.

[Zorral]

Long, thoughtful read.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/17/magazine/trump-investigations-criminal-prosecutions.html?

Quote

 

...his words provided an early signal about one of the first questions he [Biden] is going to confront as president: What to do about Donald Trump? Biden faces many daunting challenges — mitigating the ongoing damage from the pandemic, repairing institutions, restoring faith in government — but how to deal with his predecessor’s flagrant and relentless subversion of the rule of law is in many ways the most vexing.

Last year, one of Trump’s lawyers, William Consovoy, memorably argued in open court that a sitting president could shoot a man in public and not be prosecuted. The legal validity of this claim notwithstanding, there is nothing to protect a former president from prosecution. No ex-president has ever been indicted before, but no president has ever left office with so much potential criminal liability.

....It was a sentiment that I heard from a lot of legal thinkers and former government officials in the months leading up to the election: The visions of Donald Trump in an orange jumpsuit were more fantasy than reality. His true moment of reckoning would happen at the ballot box. But the election has now come and gone, and Trump, along with most of his party and many millions of Americans, has refused to accept the results. Accountability feels as if it might be further away than ever.

The stakes of an indictment would be very high. The commander in chief’s broad powers under the Constitution could make it difficult to secure convictions. The damage to democracy that would be caused by a failed prosecution of a former president is hard to even fathom. An acquittal could also set back future efforts at accountability, and embolden aspiring abusers of authority. Even once he’s out of office, Trump is going to be a powerful force in the country’s political life; putting him on trial for his conduct as president would be tantamount to putting on trial the more than 72 million Americans who voted for his re-election. One institution that Biden will no doubt be focused on trying to rebuild is the Justice Department; prosecuting Trump could complicate any effort to restore the agency’s reputation for independence and integrity. There are logistical issues, too. Prosecuting a former president could mean convicting him, and the idea of sending a former president to prison does indeed seem fantastical.

...If history is any guide, the desire to “move on” will only grow stronger in the weeks and months ahead. But how does the country move on from a president whose disregard for the law has been so constant and pervasive? 

....The stakes of an indictment would be very high. The commander in chief’s broad powers under the Constitution could make it difficult to secure convictions. The damage to democracy that would be caused by a failed prosecution of a former president is hard to even fathom. An acquittal could also set back future efforts at accountability, and embolden aspiring abusers of authority. Even once he’s out of office, Trump is going to be a powerful force in the country’s political life; putting him on trial for his conduct as president would be tantamount to putting on trial the more than 72 million Americans who voted for his re-election. One institution that Biden will no doubt be focused on trying to rebuild is the Justice Department; prosecuting Trump could complicate any effort to restore the agency’s reputation for independence and integrity. There are logistical issues, too. Prosecuting a former president could mean convicting him, and the idea of sending a former president to prison does indeed seem fantastical.

If history is any guide, the desire to “move on” will only grow stronger in the weeks and months ahead. But how does the country move on from a president whose disregard for the law has been so constant and pervasive? ...

 

 

[Fez]

4 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

The broader point is that if the marginal value of the last employee is Z, and his compensation is wages, X, and healthcare benefits Y, if the firm is attempting to maximize its profits it should be at a condition that looks ball park like:

Z = X + Y.

If Z > X, because Y just goes away, the employer has incentive to hire more labor until Z = X. That should put upward pressure on wages, X.

Alternatively, there's enough slack in the labor market (especially post-COVID) that employers simply hire additional workers with no (or little) change in wages.

Also, I think its a rather large assumption that employers will act rationally (in terms of markets) either. There would likely be enormous investor demand for they to be the beneficiaries of the change in conditions, even if dividends are a poor use of funds. Obviously that's not an issue for every employer; but it certainly is for the 36%-ish of employees who do work for large corporations.

[Fez]

In other news, it sounds like Judy Shelton will not be getting confirmed to the Fed. Which would be a very good thing.

Grassley, Rick Scott, and Alexander are all expected to miss the vote (Grassley for the first time since 1993, ending his streak; he got exposed to COVID). And Collins and Romney said they're voting no. So long as every Democrat shows up, it'll be a 48-49 no vote. Unless something changes.

McConnell could always bring the vote back up later in the lame duck. But Mark Kelly gets sworn in as soon as Arizona certifies the election results, since it was a special election, which makes the math much harder.

[OldGimletEye]

10 minutes ago, Fez said:

Alternatively, there's enough slack in the labor market (especially post-COVID) that employers simply hire additional workers with no (or little) change in wages.

Also, I think its a rather large assumption that employers will act rationally (in terms of markets) either. There would likely be enormous investor demand for they to be the beneficiaries of the change in conditions, even if dividends are a poor use of funds. Obviously that's not an issue for every employer; but it certainly is for the 36%-ish of employees who do work for large corporations.

Let me go through this again. So suppose a firm receives p for its product and pays a worker w, in wages, and y, in healthcare benefits.  Its profit per unit is something like

p - w-y = Profit Per Unit. Its not exactly a purely competitive firm because it has a bit of an economic profit.

If healthcare cost go way, then its profit per unit is something like:

p-w = Profit Per Unit.

The firm is going to notice pretty quickly that its profit per unit just increased. Even though in the real word, business may not routinely solve nonlinear optimization problems to figure out when its Marginal Cost = Marginal Revenue exactly, it still is going to figure out pretty quickly that it can increase its total revenue by selling more items, which means hiring more labor, which in turn should put upward pressure on labor markets, increasing wages.

[Fez]

3 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Let me go through this again. So suppose a firm receives p for its product and pays a worker w, in wages, and y, in healthcare benefits.  Its profit per unit is something like

p - w-y = Profit Per Unit. Its not exactly a purely competitive firm because it has a bit of an economic profit.

If healthcare cost go way, then its profit per unit is something like:

p-w = Profit Per Unit.

The firm is going to notice pretty quickly that its profit per unit just increased. Even though in the real word, business may not routinely solve nonlinear optimization problems to figure out when its Marginal Cost = Marginal Revenue exactly, it still is going to figure out pretty quickly that it can increase its total revenue by selling more items, which means hiring more labor, which in turn should put upward pressure on labor markets, increasing wages.

I understand this. I'm saying that I think there's enough supply slack in the labor market that there will not be this pressure on wages. 

I also think that even if there does start to be pressure, many companies will simply sit on the cash and/or send it shareholders instead. Even though though there's an enormous opportunity cost to that. That's what was happening pre-COVID even as the unemployment rate continued to fall.

[Ormond]

17 hours ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Looks like the Wisconsin recount will end up costing the Trump campaign ~$7.9 M. Feel sorry for some of his supporters, those who cant afford it, but are on the hook for his continued delusion (I mean, how difficult is it for him to pay for it himself?).

Also, it appears as if Raffensperger is unloading on his Republican colleagues. He just gave an interview to WaPo, where he stated that Graham was one of many people pressuring him to toss out legal ballots. Also, he called Collins a liar and a charlatan (and depressingly, he and his wife received death threats as well)

This thread moves way too fast for me to keep up with, but thought I should point out you really confused me here. I couldn't figure out why Raffensperger would be calling Susan Collins a liar and a charlatan.

Of course when I Googled I realized you were talking about Doug Collins:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_Collins_(politician)

[Mindwalker]

Bernie's campaigner - Democratic strategist Chuck Rocha talks to Jon Favreau about how the party can improve its performance among Latino voters.

 

[OldGimletEye]

1 minute ago, Fez said:

I understand this. I'm saying that I think there's enough supply slack in the labor market that there will not be this pressure on wages. 

Of course, I'm giving my arguments in the background of relevant macroeconomic conditions. Sure, some of our choices, of late my have been poor. But, that seems to me to be a different conceptual issue, which you are attempting to conflate.

Read my arguments under the ceteris paribus condition ie under a given set of macroeconomic conditions. Now if you want to argue, about better macroeconomic policy, then fine, but it seems to me your trying to conflate the two issues.

[Kalbear]

At least in my neck of the woods - software engineering - there would be an open, absurdly huge revolt if healthcare got removed or got replaced with something really shitty. Hell, there was almost already a revolt when this happened and Microsoft basically gave everyone a $3k paycut after the ACA - because MS had absurdly awesome insurance at the time. 

At least in the tech sector there is absolutely no room for spread shenanigans. They would offer as good of healthcare as they possibly could, or they would lose people in droves to the next tech company who did. 

To me, this indicates that the general concern is probably more valid - that most companies whose workers are more interchangeable are going to skimp and shortchange as much as possible, and only a the people whose skills are in high demand are going to get anything good. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

28 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Seems like a great argument to decouple healthcare from employers.

I’ve said multiple times I support doing so, but it needs to come with the corporate savings being transferred to labor.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

I’ve said multiple times I support doing so, but it needs to come with the corporate savings being transferred to labor.

Once again:

So suppose a firm receives p for its product and pays a worker w, in wages, and y, in healthcare benefits.  Its profit per unit is something like

p - w-y = Profit Per Unit. Its not exactly a purely competitive firm because it has a bit of an economic profit.

If healthcare cost go way, then its profit per unit is something like:

p-w = Profit Per Unit.

The firm is going to notice pretty quickly that its profit per unit just increased. Even though in the real word, business may not routinely solve nonlinear optimization problems to figure out when its Marginal Cost = Marginal Revenue exactly, it still is going to figure out pretty quickly that it can increase its total revenue by selling more items, which means hiring more labor, which in turn should put upward pressure on labor markets, increasing wages.

[Kalbear]

I also don't understand this argument about healthcare 'going away' as a cost. Right now companies do have healthcare as a cost, but it's almost entirely taken into account via tax breaks and costs most companies nothing or close to nothing. The 'cost' to the company is probably mostly in doing things like administration and signup. They're not going to be saving a crazy amount of money here, at least the big ones.

Though amusing to me this would mostly benefit smaller companies.