US Politics - The Conceit of Not Conceding

[OldGimletEye]

24 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Sure, if that's all there is to it. But that's not what's being discussed. They would be replaced, which is where confusion begins to creep in.

And when output exceeds demand? You're absolutely right, again as I've conceded before, that you can expand output, but what if the demand for that output doesn't materialize? You know better than me that firms will study this before acting, and if the demand isn't there, the savings would best be spent in investing in the company, which also could yield an increase in net profit over time as you automate your company. 

Or just pocket the money. I still don't get from a real world perspective why you think a business is going to be altruistic to its employees. That would be the exception, not the norm.

It's all interrelated. 

Recall to the first quote, how do you juggle viewing people who think they're getting something for free, and then said free thing is getting transferred from the private to the public sector and they'll surely notice? They'll know the process is changing, sure, but will they understand that the total annual compensation they receive as an employee has decreased? Many won't, I think it's fair to guess. 
 

No, because again we're talking about them also being covered under some universal government plan. They would cease to have premiums and their taxes go up. 

1. You haven't given any reason why demand would fall. Not one iota of a reason. I guess you could make some kind of general equilibrium argument, that if people lose their employer sponsored healthcare premiums they might fear that won't be replaced, and that will depress their expectations about future income causing them to spend less currently causing aggregate demand to fall. But, if that were the case, and I don't think it likely, we know how to fight drops in aggregate demand.

2. I have never stated that business will be "altruistic" towards their employees. I have made no such assertion. In fact, I have repeatedly pointed out that business don't provide healthcare premiums to their employees for altruistic reasons. They provide those benefits mainly because the tax code encourages it.

3. Again, if businesses no longer pay the cost of healthcare, there are good reasons for them to hire more labor, which will drive up wages. What those wages will be of course depends on macroeconomic factors and the state of employee bargaining power. But, ceteris paribus, getting employers out of the healthcare business should cause employees to be paid in cash, rather than in healthcare benefits.

4. The way we finance healthcare now isn't "free". It comes out of somebodies ass. The current tax subsidy comes out of somebodies ass. And any future or proposed healthcare system will come out of somebodies ass. Even if current employees have to pay taxes, in order to support single payer, it doesn't mean they will end up worse off. For one, they would end up with higher payments in cash. Secondly, a single payer system could likely have lower administrative cost. And finally, if we ever do something about our ridiculously over priced healthcare system, they certainly would be better off.

And finally, our current employer based system is a fucking mess, being generally the result of an historical accident. Since World War 2, we have discovered that its not adequate, forcing us to throw together a Hodge podge set of programs to cover its gaps. If we could do over, it would have been better to do something else. Of course, we don't get a chance to do over, and I recognize that just shutting down everyone's employer sponsored healthcare poses a big political risk, and is the main reason I wouldn't recommend the Democratic Party implementing single payer overnight. I would prefer it proceed with getting universal coverage first and then proceed to work on getting our healthcare cost down.

But, in the long run, it would be great if employer sponsored healthcare just died.

[SFDanny]

Two things. First LA county did not report new votes in the 25th district as I said they were going to do. Obviously the local report was wrong or circumstances changed. Ventura county did. As a result Garcia increased his lead from 104 to 422 votes. We will have to see when LA votes are reported what effect they have. Ventura has about 3100 votes outstanding, and LA has about 98,000. Of course not either of those totals are all within the district. I'm still hopeful. No movement on TJ Cox's race.

Second, on the question of Biden and any future prosecution of Trump, Biden has it made it very clear he will have nothing to do with the decision on any prosecutions. That is the responsibility of any truly independent Justice Department. That Biden worries about these issues may continue to divide people is understandable, but it has nothing to do with what will happen. If we want a clue of what will happen we will have to wait on the filling out of his Justice Department. I've no way of knowing who the new AG will be, but we will know a lot more once that person is confirmed, and even more once the office fully staffed. I have very strong doubts that all of Trumps crimes will go without investigation or that there won't be any trials. Nor do I think Congress will just move on. There are some things that must be answered and not swept under the rug. 

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

First LA county did not report new votes in the 25th district as I said they were going to do. Obviously the local report was wrong or circumstances changed.

Excuses, excuses.  I blame you.

[OldGimletEye]

5 minutes ago, Chataya de Fleury said:

1. Could we quit saying “cetaris paribus”? PLEASE? It does awful things to my spell check when I wrote a response and it’s also pretentious af. Just say “all things being equal”. Surely with as long a post as you have written, two more short words should be no trouble.

I do my best not to write like Ayn Rand or a post modernist scholar. So I will avoid using ceteris paribus in the future, replacing it with "all things being equal".

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I do my best not to write like Ayn Rand or a post modernist scholar. So I will avoid using ceteris paribus in the future, replacing it with "all things being equal".

While it undoubtedly is snooty, ceteris paribus is frequently used in my discipline, especially in model specification and articulating hypotheses.  And it means something a bit more particular in that context than "all else/things being equal."  It means "holding all other conditions constant," which is why you include control variables.  Anyway, I agree it's entirely unnecessary to use the term on this board, but I too am guilty of doing it every once in awhile just due to habit.

[Mindwalker]

9 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

Second, on the question of Biden and any future prosecution of Trump, Biden has it made it very clear he will have nothing to do with the decision on any prosecutions. That is the responsibility of any truly independent Justice Department. That Biden worries about these issues may continue to divide people is understandable, but it has nothing to do with what will happen. If we want a clue of what will happen we will have to wait on the filling out of his Justice Department. I've no way of knowing who the new AG will be, but we will know a lot more once that person is confirmed, and even more once the office fully staffed. I have very strong doubts that all of Trumps crimes will go without investigation or that there won't be any trials. Nor do I think Congress will just move on. There are some things that must be answered and not swept under the rug. 

Yes he has, but signaling that he'd rather they not prosecute is, according to NBCNews, "setting the tone" for the DOJ. And yes, his pick for AG will probably interesting...

[Kalbear]

ceteris paribus, you're a dweeb

[DMC]

Don't talk to Mindwalker like that.

[OldGimletEye]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

While it undoubtedly is snooty, ceteris paribus is frequently used in my discipline, especially in model specification and articulating hypotheses.  And it means something a bit more particular in that context than "all else/things being equal."  It means "holding all other conditions constant," which is why you include control variables.  Anyway, I agree it's entirely unnecessary to use the term on this board, but I too am guilty of doing it every once in awhile just due to habit.

I'm a big fan of using simple and clear language, and avoiding jargon. But, I realize that at times I use terms of art, or jargon, often out of habit or for reasons of brevity.

But, yeah, most of the time jargon, should be cast aside for more simple terms, when possible.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

26 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

1. You haven't given any reason why demand would fall. Not one iota of a reason. I guess you could make some kind of general equilibrium argument, that if people lose their employer sponsored healthcare premiums they might fear that won't be replaced, and that will depress their expectations about future income causing them to spend less currently causing aggregate demand to fall. But, if that were the case, and I don't think it likely, we know how to fight drops in aggregate demand.

Please explain to me why you keep repeating this, because you've already asked this directly and I said I did not say the above. I've been very clear that demand would be static or unknown in most reasonable scenarios. 

Quote

2. I have never stated that business will be "altruistic" towards their employees. I have made no such assertion. In fact, I have repeatedly pointed out that business don't provide healthcare premiums to their employees for altruistic reasons. They provide those benefits mainly because the tax code encourages it.

Agreed. But the point I've been trying to make, clearly unsuccessfully, is that if the owner of a hypothetical company can just pocket the savings from this, and the externalities of it go unnoticed for a while as things transition, what's stopping them? 

There is a pandemic going on, after all. Best grab the cash while you can.

Quote

3. Again, if businesses no longer pay the cost of healthcare, there are good reasons for them to hire more labor, which will drive up wages. What those wages will be of course depends on macroeconomic factors and the state of employee bargaining power. But, ceteris paribus, getting employers out of the healthcare business should cause employees to be paid in cash, rather than in healthcare benefits.

Perhaps it may, but do you really think it will be equal value? And that's before we consider the pandemic and its externalities. You're talking about hiring people. Companies are learning how they can maintain the status quo while reducing their workforces. 

Quote

4. The way we finance healthcare now isn't "free". It comes out of somebodies ass. The current tax subsidy comes out of somebodies ass. And any future or proposed healthcare system will come out of somebodies ass. Even if current employees have to pay taxes, in order to support single payer, it doesn't mean they will end up worse off. For one, they would end up with higher payments in cash. Secondly, a single payer system could likely have lower administrative cost. 

This makes me want to watch The Thing, because that's the only way I can visualize healthcare coming out of someone's ass.

Jokes aside, I agree with each point, if you can make it happen. But those are big ifs, and the bold is an assumption I wouldn't rely on to make up the difference for those who are struggling. 

 

Quote

And finally, if we ever do something about our ridiculously over priced healthcare system, they certainly would be better off.

Quote

And finally, our current employer based system is a fucking mess, being generally the result of an historical accident. Since World War 2, we have discovered that its not adequate, forcing us to throw together a Hodge podge set of programs to cover its gaps. If we could do over, it would have been better to do something else. Of course, we don't get a chance to do over, and I recognize that just shutting down everyone's employer sponsored healthcare poses a big political risk, and is the main reason I wouldn't recommend the Democratic Party implementing single payer overnight. I would prefer it proceed with getting universal coverage first and then proceed to work on getting our healthcare cost down.

 

Quote

But, in the long run, it would be great if employer sponsored healthcare just died.

Disco!

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

17 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I'm a big fan of using simple and clear language, and avoiding jargon. But, I realize that at times I use terms of art, or jargon, often out of habit or for reasons of brevity.

But, yeah, most of the time jargon, should be cast aside for more simple terms, when possible.

Did you forget all the equations you've been posting? 

[SFDanny]

52 minutes ago, DMC said:

Excuses, excuses.  I blame you.

As well you should. Mea Culpa

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

10 minutes ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

The hate sex would be EPIC

Nah, it would be more like the kind of sex a couple has after they've been moderately annoying each other all day, then both apologize over a glass of wine or two and get frisky.

[OldGimletEye]

13 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Please explain to me why you keep repeating this, because you've already asked this directly and I said I did not say the above. I've been very clear that demand would be static or unknown in most reasonable scenarios. 

Agreed. But the point I've been trying to make, clearly unsuccessfully, is that if the owner of a hypothetical company can just pocket the savings from this, and the externalities of it go unnoticed for a while as things transition, what's stopping them? 

There is a pandemic going on, after all. Best grab the cash while you can.

Perhaps it may, but do you really think it will be equal value? And that's before we consider the pandemic and its externalities. You're talking about hiring people. Companies are learning how they can maintain the status quo while reducing their workforces. 

This makes me want to watch The Thing, because that's the only way I can visualize healthcare coming out of someone's ass.

Jokes aside, I agree with each point, if you can make it happen. But those are big ifs, and the bold is an assumption I wouldn't rely on to make up the difference for those who are struggling. 

 

 

Disco!

1. This where I got the impression about demand. Quoting you:

Quote

 You're absolutely right, again as I've conceded before, that you can expand output, but what if the demand for that output doesn't materialize?

2. The great thing about capitalist pigs is you can always count on them to act like greedy pigs. If he or she can make more money or generate more revenue by expanding output, because his cost went down, he will likely do so.

3. All things equal, I don't see why the value paid for health insurance premiums would not just be paid in cash, if employer sponsored health insurance went away.  I don't doubt that employers have some bargaining power with their employees, but I don't see why eliminating health insurance premiums would all of a suddenly just grant them more bargaining power when setting compensation. In fact, I think it likely to be the opposite, as some employees might decide to do their own thing if they don't have to worry about obtaining insurance from an employer. And I do believe that there are some studies that do show this after the ACA took effect. In short, I'd argue that employer sponsored health insurance actually gives employers more bargaining power in wage setting, an issue I touched on in a prior post.

[OldGimletEye]

32 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Did you forget all the equations you've been posting? 

No I did not. Its true I'm inclined to post simple mathematical relationships when making economic points. My reasons are basically math is clear and its concise and the terms don't have the vagueness of written language. It takes less effort to explain the idea of profit maximization with a few symbols, then trying to write paragraphs about it. When I read an econ paper, I often get the flavor of what an author is trying to say, by reading the equations he/she writes, much quicker than reading the paragraphs he writes. I know immediately what the model is about and the assumptions behind it.

[Kalbear]

Math is  clear; the economics of how healthcare influences demand for work, revenue for companies and overall economic health is anything but. I can use equations to model football too but they're almost certainly not useful, and you're basically just assuming a spherical cat. 

Ipso facto, the math isn't particularly useful in proving your point. 

[OldGimletEye]

Its clear to show how profit maximization works, without me having to write several paragraphs about it.  Now you can reject the whole theory that firms will hire more labor, putting upward pressure on wages, if the cost of health care premiums are eliminated, if you like. But, it does clarify what I'm trying to get at.

And no math doesn't prove a one's point. I have read enough Real Business Cycle models to know better. That said, I do know what RBC models are really about after reading the equations that go into them. They say a certain thing that will result and clear about the predicted results. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

Its clear to show how profit maximization works, without me having to write several paragraphs about it.  Now you can reject the whole theory that firms will hire more labor, putting upward pressure on wages if you like. But, it does clarify what I'm trying to get at.

As layoffs are going on left and right?

[OldGimletEye]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

As layoffs are going on left and right?

All things being equal. Sure the level of wages won't be as good with a bad macroeconomic cycle. I have never denied this.

[Kalbear]

Alternately, with the lack of need to provide healthcare corporations will basically fire everyone, rehire people as contractors and give them fuckall.