OBAMA/TRUMPCARE MEGATHREAD

[Y2HH]

Just so it's pointed out, we're close to the top but this isn't health care.

 

We're also below the OECD average on spending for teacher salaries, to throw that into the pot as well (I read that as saying a whole lot of that education spending goes to administration, which sounds pretty accurate to me since tests aren't cheap).

 

You just compared the US as #3 to two places that are as small as Rhode Island.

[Balta1701]

...and watch when they STILL don't use it.

Make it free and over the counter. People use stuff like crazy when it's free. A tiny price is an enormous economic disincentive compared to "free", there's real solid economic literature on that topic.

[Y2HH]

Really? Would you care to write a budget that allows someone to live self sufficiently on $15,000 in America?

 

Since people are doing it, it must be possible.

[cabiness42]

I'm pretty sure No. 1 already happens. Birth control is either free or relatively cheap. And usually it's readily available.

 

No. 2 I still don't think is going to work. We've tried throwing money into schools over the last several decades and it's not helping. It's not like a brand new school with Harvard educated teachers in the middle of Austin is going to change those kids. I could get behind the day care stuff, that makes sense and wouldn't cost much in the grand scheme.

 

No. 3 - i still don't know what that means. What lifestyle do you think people should have as a minimum?

 

We're throwing money into the wrong things at schools. Money needs to be spent on (1) making sure the kids get to school (2) making sure they have a safe environment in which to learn (3) having teachers they can connect with.

 

In the worst of the bad neighborhoods, you need one person for every 50 students whose full time job is to follow up on kids who are absent from school and keep in touch with their parents. I'm not aware of any schools that have this to that extent. When I taught, we had one such person for the entire school of 600 kids.

[Balta1701]

You just compared the US as #3 to two places that are as small as Rhode Island.

Dude...here are your exact words.

We already have dramatically high education spending.

 

Higher than anyone in the world.

 

I'm pretty sure "Higher than anyone in the world" includes small countries. If you want to say "higher than the largest developed countries" then use the qualifier in the first place.

[Y2HH]

Make it free and over the counter. People use stuff like crazy when it's free. A tiny price is an enormous economic disincentive compared to "free", there's real solid economic literature on that topic.

 

Well, if you're right, babies being born out of wedlock in poor communities should drop to almost zero within a decade.

 

Watch as that doesn't even come close to happening.

[Y2HH]

Dude...here are your exact words.

 

 

I'm pretty sure "Higher than anyone in the world" includes small countries. If you want to say "higher than the largest developed countries" then use the qualifier in the first place.

 

No, what you posted was bulls***.

 

You posted cost per student. So do that, add up all the students in the US and compare it to the total spending of the nations you compared it too.

 

Add it up...I know you're good at math.

 

You're argument just fell apart.

 

Let me be more clear for you since you seem to require that.

 

Overall, we spend FAR more than anyone else on education in the world.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Y2HH

[Jenksismyhero]

How have you established that a higher minimum wage "didn't solve the problem"? We've dramatically cut the minimum wage relative to inflation over the past 40 years or so and thus it shouldn't be surprising that we're judging it to be a much bigger problem now than it was previously.

 

My favorite example of this continues to be the Tennessee congresswoman who said we didn't need to raise the minimum wage because the $2.15 or so she received when she worked a minimum wage job in the late 60's was just fine...and when you adjusted that value for inflation it turned out to be about $14.

 

Adjusting for inflation the minimum wage would be like 10 bucks. It's not a huge leap.

 

 

[Balta1701]

No, what you posted was bulls***.

 

You posted cost per student. So do that, add up all the students in the US and compare it to the total spending of the nations you compared it too.

 

Add it up...I know you're good at math.

 

You're argument just fell apart.

 

Let me be more clear for you since you seem to require that.

 

Overall, we spend FAR more than anyone else on education in the world.

Yes, you are correct, the United States is bigger than Germany or France.

 

Correcting for the "size of the country" is sort of hte most basic thing possible here. Would you be in favor of the U.S. spending the same total amount on education as a country 1/3 its size?

[Balta1701]

Adjusting for inflation the minimum wage would be like 10 bucks. It's not a huge leap.

From the value it was in the 1960's it'd be nearly $14. It'd nearly double.

[Y2HH]

Yes, you are correct, the United States is bigger than Germany or France.

 

Correcting for the "size of the country" is sort of hte most basic thing possible here. Would you be in favor of the U.S. spending the same total amount on education as a country 1/3 its size?

 

I'd be ok with the US spending less on education period. Since what we're spending now, is by and large, completely wasted since they have no idea where or how to spend the money.

 

We're great at spending money. We're even better at spending money in all the wrong places, so long as they're in the general "area" where we need to spend it.

 

It's hard to spend money properly on education when the people we have in charge of the money spent on education are political cronies that knew the right people to get their job in the first place.

[Jenksismyhero]

I'm sure you'll find this hilarious, but once again, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act thanks you for your support.

 

(In case you haven't paid attention, the requirements that all plans provide no-cost birth control and access to education/support/family planning resources has been the subject of quite a few court cases already. So for a lot of people...it isn't currently available...particularly at low income levels.)

 

This has been around for a while. Obamacare didn't suddenly make that happen. Most planned parenthoods charge by income and/or get their money back from insurance companies or medicaid.

[Iwritecode]

It's not impossible to define. We already define per diem by county across the entire country, and look at taxes and other differently based on number of children,etc.

 

Alternatively, we could simplify with a non-means-tested universal basic income.

 

It would make wages 1000 times more complicated than they are now. What if you are working while still living at home with your parents and you move out on your own and get married Do you get a raise? What if you have a set of twins. Do you get another raise?

 

The circumstances that define the monentary amount a person "needs" to live vary too drastically to try to nail it down to a single number.

[Balta1701]

I'd be ok with the US spending less on education period. Since what we're spending now, is by and large, completely wasted since they have no idea where or how to spend the money.

 

We're great at spending money. We're even better at spending money in all the wrong places, so long as they're in the general "area" where we need to spend it.

 

It's hard to spend money properly on education when the people we have in charge of the money spent on education are political cronies that knew the right people to get their job in the first place.

Just so it's said, I agree with a lot of what you say here. I think our teachers being paid below the OECD average is a very clear symptom of this problem.

[Jenksismyhero]

Really? Would you care to write a budget that allows someone to live self sufficiently on $15,000 in America?

 

Don't buy any luxury items that Americans think are rights and it's pretty easy. We're talking about a living wage - what you need to provide you with life essentials. 15k is MORE than enough.

[cabiness42]

Really? Would you care to write a budget that allows someone to live self sufficiently on $15,000 in America?

 

Depends on where in America. I could do it here pretty easily.

 

Rent+utilities for a modest 1BR apartment is about $7000 per year. If you're willing to have a roommate and/or live in a more questionable area, you can do it for $4000/year.

 

Groceries are about $1600 per year.

 

Car payments for a reliable used car are about $1800 per year.

 

Gas for a commute of about 20 miles each way is about $2000 per year.

 

Clothes are about $600 per year.

 

Doesn't leave a lot left over for entertainment, but it's still doable.

 

That's not to say that the minimum wage shouldn't be higher, but it's not at all impossible to live in $15-17K in a lot of areas.

[Y2HH]

Just so it's said, I agree with a lot of what you say here. I think our teachers being paid below the OECD average is a very clear symptom of this problem.

 

Right, which is why it makes no sense. How can we be spending so much on education in this country if one of the most important factors in educating people (teachers) are being paid LESS than the OECD average? That money is going somewhere, and I'm betting if you followed the trail, it'd lead to a bunch of politicians bank accounts, or the bank accounts of their friends.

 

One place it isn't going, for sure, is to teachers or modernizing a lot of these classrooms, who STILL have limited or no access to modern computers or the Internet.

 

It's ridiculous.

[Jenksismyhero]

From the value it was in the 1960's it'd be nearly $14. It'd nearly double.

 

In terms of purchasing/buying power it's the equivalent of $10.74. I was a little low.

 

In 1968, the supposed high point of minimum wage purchasing power, it was $1.60

 

http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

Edited November 21, 2013 by Jenksismybitch

[cabiness42]

It would make wages 1000 times more complicated than they are now. What if you are working while still living at home with your parents and you move out on your own and get married Do you get a raise? What if you have a set of twins. Do you get another raise?

 

The circumstances that define the monentary amount a person "needs" to live vary too drastically to try to nail it down to a single number.

 

That is too complicated, however, I'm not against singling out certain industries where the majority of workers are under 21 (thinking mainly about fast food here) and having a slightly lower minimum wage for those positions.

[Balta1701]

No it's not. I was a little low, it's 10.74.

 

In 1968, the supposed high point of minimum wage purchasing power, it was $1.60

 

http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

Ok, you're right I'm conflating the actual minimum wage with the number Rep. Blackburn quoted.

 

Are you on board with a $10.75 minimum wage with an inflation adjustment and states like NY/Ca allowed to set their own higher values? Combined with the PPACA I think you've actually come fairly close to a living wage scenario there.

[Reddy]

This is my solution to the problem, though it encompasses far more than health care.

 

First of all, yes, contraception should be widely available, but find some other way than forcing people who have religious objections to provide it. That's an absolutely terrible way to go about it. Planned Parenthood gets hundreds of millions of dollars in government money and tens of millions more in political donations, so if they're going to continue to get that money, make them responsible for providing it.

 

Secondly, nationwide, but especially in poor areas, we need a dramatic increase in education spending. Getting a kid a basic education and high school graduation is the best way to reduce the chances that he'll be a drain on government resources the rest of his life. Aside from teachers, schools need paraprofessionals whose job it is to be out in the community interacting with parents and making sure kids are at school when they're supposed to be. Also aside from teachers, schools need child care facilities that take kids age 3 and up from 6am to 9pm, so that parents can be free to have jobs without worrying about who will be caring for their kids. Yes, this is going to cost a lot of money, but a combination of cutting pork from the budget, modest tax increases, and the expected decrease in the need for other entitlement spending can cover this.

 

Thirdly, let's pass a law that automatically pegs the minimum wage to the cost of living. Having to have Congress argue about it every couple years doesn't help anybody.

 

There's probably more, but this is a start.

 

agree wholeheartedly

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Ok, you're right I'm conflating the actual minimum wage with the number Rep. Blackburn quoted.

 

Are you on board with a $10.75 minimum wage with an inflation adjustment? Combined with the PPACA I think you've actually come fairly close to a living wage scenario there.

 

Not in one move, and not in this s***ty economy, but yes, it should be increased gradually. I'm fine with that.

 

And btw, as soon as it happens we can all agree that anyone who complains they need more money can just shut up because they have everything society should provide them. Right?

[Balta1701]

That is too complicated, however, I'm not against singling out certain industries where the majority of workers are under 21 (thinking mainly about fast food here) and having a slightly lower minimum wage for those positions.

Problem with that of course is that fast food isn't a job where the majority of workers are under 21. The median age of fast food workers is 29; 1/2 of fast food employees are over 29. Furthermore, about 1/2 are on some sort of government assistance at present (food stamps, aid for children, etc.)

[Balta1701]

Not in one move, and not in this s***ty economy, but yes, it should be increased gradually. I'm fine with that.

 

And btw, as soon as it happens we can all agree that anyone who complains they need more money can just shut up because they have everything society should provide them. Right?

You'd probably have me moving on to complaining about the failure of the 401k as a retirement plan, if that counts.

[cabiness42]

Problem with that of course is that fast food isn't a job where the majority of workers are under 21. The median age of fast food workers is 29; 1/2 of fast food employees are over 29. Furthermore, about 1/2 are on some sort of government assistance at present (food stamps, aid for children, etc.)

 

The median age being 29--is that including management or just entry-level positions?