US Politics - The Conceit of Not Conceding

[Fez]

5 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

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.

I don't think I'm conflating anything, all of these issues are interconnected. We can't make one change to one condition without pay attention to how conditions will impact things. And I don't think there's nearly the willpower to change everything; I don't even think there's the willpower to just change one condition.

 

1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

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.

Except we have the very obvious real world example of Apple not doing this. For the past 8 years, investors have regularly forced the company to get marginal cost = marginal revenue via stock dividends rather than reinvestment. It's bad for the company longterm, but Tim Cook doesn't want David Einhorn or any other equity firms suing again.

[OldGimletEye]

1 minute ago, Kalbear Total Landscaping said:

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.

1. If healthcare is not a cost to company's then there is no worry they will pocket the money if employer sponsored healthcare goes away.

2. Its true of course that the tax code subsidizes employer sponsored healthcare. I don't think its true to say the employers bear no cost in paying for healthcare benefits.

[Fez]

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

1. If healthcare is not a cost to company's then there is no worry they will pocket the money if employer sponsored healthcare goes away.

But getting back to the original argument I was making, that would be just as bad. My point at the start of this is that many employees will be, or at least think they will be, worse off from a change in how health coverage is structured. Because they will see taxes increases to pay for the new coverage, but will not see employment compensation increase sufficiently to cover those taxes.

[OldGimletEye]

56 minutes ago, Fez said:

I don't think I'm conflating anything, all of these issues are interconnected. We can't make one change to one condition without pay attention to how conditions will impact things. And I don't think there's nearly the willpower to change everything; I don't even think there's the willpower to just change one condition.

Even with a macroeconomic cycle where unemployment is high, the basic thrust of the argument holds. Eliminating healthcare cost should put upward pressure on labor markets.

56 minutes ago, Fez said:

Except we have the very obvious real world example of Apple not doing this. For the past 8 years, investors have regularly forced the company to get marginal cost = marginal revenue via stock dividends rather than reinvestment. It's bad for the company longterm, but Tim Cook doesn't want David Einhorn or any other equity firms suing again.

This has little to do with MC=MR condition. Apple's shareholders could be asking for dividends because they don't believe that Apple's current investment opportunities are sufficient to pay their required rate of return.

[OldGimletEye]

26 minutes ago, Fez said:

But getting back to the original argument I was making, that would be just as bad. My point at the start of this is that many employees will be, or at least think they will be, worse off from a change in how health coverage is structured. Because they will see taxes increases to pay for the new coverage, but will not see employment compensation increase sufficiently to cover those taxes.

Let's say companies don't pay a nickel for healthcare (an argument I don't buy by the way. Saying that companies only pay 40% of healthcare cost for every one dollar spent, because of the tax code, isn't the same thing as saying they don't bear any cost).

But, clearly somebody is paying for it. If employer sponsored healthcare goes away, there is no reason to suppose that employees will be worse off. We are just changing the method of delivery.

Now many employees may feel they are losing something that is "free", which it isn't  as it is coming out of somebody's pocket. I admit that many might feel this way, and it's a reason I don't support destroying employer sponsored healthcare overnight (though I do support getting universal coverage as quickly as possible).

But saying how employees might feel as opposed the reality of the situation are different things. I thought we were arguing about the economic impact, not the politics behind it. And I think I've said repeatedly (on this thread and others), while the technocratic case for getting rid of employer sponsored healthcare is strong, the politics behind it may not be so simple.

[Varysblackfyre321]

https://www.bing.com/amp/s/www.upi.com/amp/Top_News/US/2020/11/16/FBI-Hate-crime-murders-surged-to-record-high-in-2019/6361605578395/

This kinda makes the right’s fearmongering of Antifa seem just a little weak.

 

[OnionAhaiReborn]

4 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

 

But saying how employees might feel as opposed the reality of the situation are different things. I thought we were arguing about the economic impact, not the politics behind it. And I think I've said repeatedly (on this thread and others), while the technocratic case for getting rid of employer sponsored healthcare is strong, the politics behind it may not be so simple.

I don't disagree that the politics of transitioning to single payer are very difficult, but I also want to point out that the politics of tinkering with the health care system while not fixing its basic flaws were also disastrous, and could prove to be again. The ACA was an improvement, but it also gave Democrats ownership over every valid complaint people have about their heath insurance. Premiums up? Deductible outrageous? Thanks, Obama. 

Single payer would be tough in the short term but once entrenched would never be eliminated, and would always give Democrats a winning issue if Republicans dared attack it. Same way Democrats win when Social Security becomes an issue. 

[OldGimletEye]

4 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

 Single payer would be tough in the short term but once entrenched would never be eliminated, and would always give Democrats a winning issue if Republicans dared attack it. Same way Democrats win when Social Security becomes an issue. 

As a matter of technocratic policy, it seems to me that single payer is the way to go.

The issue, in my view, turns on one's estimation of how tough things would be in the short term. If we are talking about an ACA level of backlash, then Democrats would likely weather the storm just fine. But, if the backlash is bigger, things might be quite difficult for Democrats for quite awhile, to the point they lose their credibility on healthcare issues compared to the Republican Party.

Unfortunately, probably a lot of people do see their employer sponsored healthcare as "free", even though there is nothing "free" about it. Many of them are probably likely to be upset that they are losing their "free" healthcare. Add to that, that people don't generally like uncertainty.

[Kalbear]

The other issue is that there are a lot of people like me who like their healthcare coverage. This was an issue with the ACA, and this is going to be an even bigger issue with a lot of the various proposals - especially M4A, where medicare isn't nearly as good as many plans out there.

As one person put it, the biggest barrier to single payer is that too many Americans have too good of coverage.

[Kalbear]

In unrelated actual politics news, Alaska  has basically passed rank choice voting:
 

 

[Kalbear]

And Harris is going to be not doing her national security briefing and will be killing the Fed nominee's nomination instead.

 

 

[Maithanet]

29 minutes ago, Kalbear Total Landscaping said:

In unrelated actual politics news, Alaska  has basically passed rank choice voting:
 

 

This is a good thing.  Both because ranked choice voting is good and because we're more likely that we get centerist Republicans like Murkowski rather than dead weight Republicans like Sullivan. 

[Mindwalker]

Quick review: Graham called Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and, according to Raffensperger's account, inquired about whether he could illegally invalidate all votes in counties where there was a higher prevalence of signature mismatches among vote-by-mail ballots (i.e. counties where more people voted by mail which would inevitably be pro-Democratic counties).(...)

The main problem for Graham and his now shifting account of the call is that some Raffensperger aides were on the call too (i.e. witnesses) and at least one has already corroborated Raffensperger's recollection. Oops. (...)

Earlier Tuesday, Graham suddenly began suggesting he had simply been calling around to multiple secretaries of state to chew the election fat. Only that was clearly a lie too. 

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/11/17/1996387/-Shapeshifter-Lindsey-Graham-digs-election-fraud-hole-even-deeper-with-sequence-of-provable-lies

[OldGimletEye]

3 hours 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 think there is some truth to this. And a healthcare system decoupled from employers might cause some people to work for themselves, since the don't have to worry about getting decent insurance. It should seem the "Party of Business" would like that.

Suppose in your next job offer, a business says they will pay you wither 65K in cash, annually, or 60K in cash and then pay 4K in health insurance premiums. Now at first, you might say, take the 65K, that's obvious. But, what if the 4K was not taxable.? Assume you pay taxes at 20%. If you assume, that your out of pocket insurance premiums would be about 4K per year anyway, then you probably would be indifferent between the two offers, since at a 20% tax rate, you would save 1000 in taxes by taking the second offer. Either way, after taxes and healthcare premiums, you have about 48K to spend on other items.

Of course, in the real world. your probably not likely to find as good insurance on the private market, as you are with your employer. So you will probably most definitely take the offer of 60K and 4K in insurance premiums paid by the employer. In fact, you might likely be willing to take less than a total compensation of 64K, something the employer would definitely like. You might be willing take only 59K, 58K, or less in compensation along with the 4K in premiums if you believe that the employer offers a better insurance plan than other alternatives.

[Kalbear]

Ooh, Graham's in trouble and I'm sure that he'll get a very mild shunning for this

[Mindwalker]

Biden has told aides that he's concerned that investigations would divide the country but that he would leave decisions up to an independent Justice Department.

Broadly, Biden's priorities will be the economy, the coronavirus, climate change and race relations, not looking back at the Trump administration, an adviser said.

Presidents generally set the tone for what issues they believe should be priorities for the Justice Department, and questions about Trump-related investigations or retrospective reviews are expected to intensify as Biden gets closer to taking office.

"He can set a tone about what he thinks should be done," a Biden adviser said. (...)

Emphasizing an arm's-length approach to the Justice Department could give Biden cover from criticism from his supporters about any lack of investigations into Trump, his policies or his staff. (...)

Biden has said he wouldn't pardon Trump should that become a realistic question.

Still, multiple aides said, Biden is generally not inclined to see his Justice Department investigate Trump.

One of the reasons he has given aides is that he believes investigations would alienate the more than 73 million Americans who voted for Trump, the people familiar with the discussions said. Some Democrats, however, have said Biden should be prioritizing the concerns of his supporters, not those of his detractors. (...)

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/president-elect-biden-wary-trump-focused-investigations-sources-say-n1247959

[Maithanet]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear Total Landscaping said:

Ooh, Graham's in trouble and I'm sure that he'll get a very mild shunning for this

Shunning sounds awfully strong.  But I'm sure he'll get two, perhaps even three tuts. 

[Kalbear]

Just now, Maithanet said:

Shunning sounds awfully strong.  But I'm sure he'll get two, perhaps even three tuts. 

Collins was heard to have seriously vague concerns

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

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.

That assumes the demand is there and kind of sounds like the exact same logic that says tax cuts automatically lead to growth. They don't.

Like others have said, the corporate savings may be passed along to some extent to employees who are valuable. But those people probably make up a relatively minor amount of the total work force, and people who work low and middle end jobs that are interchangeable probably aren't going to see much in the terms of increased pay. The savings will go to those at the top. 

[OldGimletEye]

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

That assumes the demand is there and kind of sounds like the exact same logic that says tax cuts automatically lead to growth. They don't.

Like others have said, the corporate savings may be passed along to some extent to employees who are valuable. But those people probably make up a relatively minor amount of the total work force, and people who work low and middle end jobs that are interchangeable probably aren't going to see much in the terms of increased pay. The savings will go to those at the top. 

First what is your argument that demand would drop? Its not very clear. Secondly, the issue with tax cuts is mostly concerning people's labor supply decisions (which can end up being a wash after both income and subsitution effects cancel each other), where the second argument has to do with a firm's labor demand decisions. I'm not sure how your comparing these two.

And also, the biggest beneficiaries of the current system, by which I mean the tax exclusion, are top earners, since they can shield more of their compensation through healthcare premiums because they are in higher tax brackets.