What is the real unemployment rate?

If Obamacare is dictating to all employers how they must define part-time workers, as it relates to wages, and all other company benefits, then Obamacare must be terminated.

But I suggest Obamacare ONLY dictates that those over 30 hours receive Obamacare...not how much vacation pay they receive.

Whether people are removed from the workforce due to a reduced economy, or they are too lazy to work, or they simply don't have the mental and physical ability to be employed, there will always be some percentage of Americans in these categories. Let's pretend this number is 10% of everyone above 16 years and below 65 years old. This group will always be a burden on the USA. The questions which should be asked and analyzed are 'what is the best process to support these people' and 'how can government assistance be enforced to remove freeloaders'?

 

That is correct.

Where did I ever suggest that ObamaCare requires certain levels of "wages and all other company benefits [exclusive of healthcare]"?

Oh, that's right: I didn't...

Again, where have I ever suggested that government should mandate certain employee benefits? (In fact, I bemoan ObamaCare; in part, because it requires employers to provide a benefit that some may find unaffordable.)

The market will determine what benefits should be offered.

My question to you is this: Why would you resent the fact that most Americans would expect any decent job to provide good benefits; and that, lacking such a good benefits package, they would find the job unattractive, irrespective of any other considerations?

 

Obamacare doesn't dictate wages. Nor does it dictate other company benefits. But neither of those matter to topic at hand. Health Insurance is THE most expensive benefit that companies provide today. The cost of a weeks paid vacation is a tiny speck on the radar compared to health insurance.

Saying that Obama care doesn't have a drastic effect on employment, because it doesn't dictate how much paid vacation people get, or how many discount $5 off tickets they can buy at Six-Flags, is basically like watching the Titanic hit the iceberg, and assume everything is fine, because the dinghy at the back wasn't damaged.

That's the problem that companies are facing. It's too expensive to provide health insurance to employees that don't provide that much benefit. The result is they are being hired through temps for years a time, or they are having their work hours cut back to under 30, so they are not required to have insurance.

Freeloaders and whatever.
First, I do not accept the presupposition that it is anyone's job to support someone else. Your mere existence on this planet, doesn't mean you are entitled to my rightfully earned money, or anyone other person's money.

Second, the answer to the first question is private charities. Private charities are far better for a number of reasons.

1. They have more internal incentive to put the money where it will do the most good, whereas government charity doesn't care where the money actually ends up, because the real purpose was to gain votes for the politician who promoted it, not the benefit of the poor.

2. it is in fact charity. Government programs are not actually charity. If you as a citizen have to be forced by government under threat of imprisonment, to give money to government run charity.... is that actually charity? Or simply theft? Private charities are actually individuals choosing to give their money to a cause they support. It's not coerced, not fake, not phoney, not demanded, not compelled.

Third, the second answer is there is no possible way to prevent freeloading. There are number of reasons for this as well.

1. Whatever rules you put in place, the people who wish to take advantage of this government money, will do or say, whatever is necessary to meet those requirements. A prime example was Hawaii's free child health insurance program. As soon as the program started, thousands of families cut their health insurance, in order to meet the requirements to get free child health care. People earning $100,000 a year, were cutting insurance, to get free health care from the state.

2. It is the nature of government to want to promote and expand itself. Say you create a government agency to provide anything, let's say free Bread, to people. Regardless of what the politician who promoted the program wants, and regardless of how voters assumed that program would be limited to, that agency now has a direct reason to expand and promote itself. The more people they sign up for free bread, the more money they use to "Help the Poor Breadless People", the more they can justify their existence. That agency will sign up as many people as possible, and use as much money as possible, so that next time the politicians ask "So why does this agency exist?"

The Agency or program can reply "See! We've helped over 50,000 people! And we have distributed 82 million loaves of bread! Without us, all those people would be breadless! All their children would starve! And we not only need to continue funding, but we need more funding, and more people to help distribute the bread!"

The Agency has very little motivation to screen out fraud or people working the system. In fact it has many reasons to not do either. By screening out fraud, the amount of fraud will become public knowledge, which could have political costs. It's much safer to ignore the fraud, pretend it's not there, and allow the tax payers to keep eating the bill unawares. Further, kicking off the people gaming the system is risky. Each person kicked off the government dole, will be interviewed by hostile media or opposition politicians, and could be paraded around as a political football to be kicked at the person in charge. It's much safer to simply allow people working the system, to continue working the system, and let the tax payers foot the bill.

This is why *ALL* government in inherently wasteful.

 

You said 'It sounds to me as if you are perfectly willing to burden the employees just as long as the employer is not discomfited...' of which I responded that I think it's stupid for workers to demand all the 'personal' benefits from employers then wonder why they don't earn higher wages?

If my statement about Obamacare was correct...then it was correct...

 

We do not resent that people want good benefits. The problem is, they don't want the trade off, and then they complain.

The amount of money any employer has, to give in compensation is a finite number.

The problem is, you demand more benefits, and then complain about static wages, and how the median income hasn't increased in years.

Hello? Those two things are connect. If a company has $25,000 to pay for a specific job, and 10% goes out in employer side taxes, then you only have $22,500 to spend in wages. If you then demand unemployment compensation if you are laid off, they have to take out several thousand as a contingency of that, leaving $20,000. Then you want another $3,000 in health insurance, that leaves $17,000. And then you complain that $8 an hour isn't enough to live on? So you raise minimum wage, and suddenly there are no jobs, and you complain that companies are not hiring people?

All of these things are connected. The more you get in benefits, the less you are going to earn in wages. Then you complain about that and demand a higher minimum wage, and jobs disappear.

You can either get compensation in cash, and take care of yourself. Or you can get benefits, and not get paid much cash. But you can't have it both ways. Something has to give. Math doesn't care about your political ideology. You can't get $20,000 in cash, and $20,000 in benefits, from $20,000 static dollars. The amount of money that any business can pay you for your work, doesn't magically change because you got a public education that failed to teach math, and you voted for an idiot in Government who only does math when it involved counting the votes he got with his "hope and change" motto.

 

Well...with Obamacare available to everyone soon, there's no reason why all people cannot receive a 'work card' from a doctor...sort of like the old 'draft card' which says a person is either eligible to work or not. If they are ineligible to work, then they qualify for full government assistance. If they are eligible to work, then I suggest only short term (six months maximum) assistance is provided. I might also entertain that for those eligible to work, they can receive full government support if they work 30 hours per week as a volunteer. If higher numbers of people are unemployed for longer periods of time, then let the government create WPA type programs to provide jobs. I'm 100% for assisting those in need but 0% for those who are simply lazy. I think most people derive pride from working, and although some jobs are quite humbling, it's better for the person and more productive for the country to keep people busy. But I know as a nation we are too complex and whiny to create these types of programs and policies, and most people won't volunteer on their own, so no matter my preferences that we have productive and working people, I suppose we'll always have 10% or more asking for government assistance.

Charities work well but they beg for money the moment the economy heads south. There is a direct correlation between the economy and giving so charities cannot be counted on when needed the most.

Regarding government I simply prefer to minimize government and maximize the private sector...maximize the cash kept by people and business. As a nation we just chalked up $17 trillion in debt because were too entitled to live within our means. IMO governments at all levels have run amok! They have no accountability because voters love the bacon. Self-serving voters equals bloated government and debt...this is today's SOP...

 

To reiterate:

And again:

I believe you have tap-danced all around these two fundamental questions, without ever having answered them directly...

 

I already acknowledged as much, in post #29 in this thread:

Do you have any evidence that companies, on average, provide more in the way of benefits than they did, oh, say, 30 years ago?

If not, how might this be the root cause of stagnant wages?

I do, however, agree with your description of our current president, in the final clause of the sentence, above...

 

Hawaii is currently one of those where there are more people under government insurance than there are people employed. This is not good because it is basically the employed and business that pay that bill for them. I think it time for all businesses to not have to provide coverage simply because it is too expansive. If the average person cannot afford health coverage without the help of an employer or government subsidy then obviously health insurance and care is not affordable to the majority of its citizens. This is ridiculous and it is greed and power that keeping it that way at the expense of our health which makes us vulnerable and a slave to the system.

Businesses that provide benefits is actually hurting us since if they don't stop it, we will never see cost go down.

 

Why should the costs of medical care go down when all other things increase in cost?

Americans spend approximately $2.5 trillion per year on medical needs. Population increases every day, IMO people are less healthy...can't imagine the cost of health care going down...

 

People are not getting less healthy regardless of what the media tells you. That 2.5 trillion isn't just spent on medical needs, it also pay several levels who are administering it, included are profits for stock holders, etc., research, cost of manufacturing medical equipment, etc.

 

I don't rely on the media but my observations of people and IMO people today are much less healthier than 40-50 years ago. And I include obesity as being unhealthy.

Americans 'spend' $2.5 trillion on health care. When inflation is ~2%, you can assume health care spending will increase a MINIMUM of $50 billion per year. If we assume 1/2 of Americans spend on health care, then this annual increase is on average $500 each and it will increase every single year...

 

Just because people are obese doesn't mean they are seeking healthcare anymore than a thinner person. I worked in healthcare for a number of years so I do have first hand experience on what the trends are.

 

The problem is, you can't force people to be healthy. You can't force them to eat a balanced diet. You can't force them to stop smoking. You can't force them to drink less alcohol. You can't force anyone anywhere to do anything, in our country.

Logically as people choose to be less health, you can equally expect health care spending to increase.

Also, as fewer and fewer people choose to take care of their elder parents, more and more will end up in care homes, also increased health care costs.

Many countries that people point to that have a lower health care spending, are places where children are expected and socially required to take care of their parents. It's an obligation and duty to support your parents, instead of having them in a care home for $70 to $80 thousand a year. That alone, is a significant portion of health care spending that simply doesn't happen in other countries.

Now the solution is something that most people don't want. Namely it be forced to pay for their own stupidity. If you eat two chocolate cakes, and sit in front of the TV watching biggest loser (I had a roomy that did exactly this), and you get diabetes, then you and you alone should pay for your health care. If you go broke, your problem. Then everyone who sees this train wreck will learn from your mistakes and society will improve.

Instead what we do is have government pay for it, and the person lives just as irresponsibly as they did before, and no one learns anything, and the cycle of madness continues.

This is also why we should not have health insurance tied to work. People get into a work insurance pool, and the cost of their stupidity is spread over the whole company, meaning they themselves do not directly incur the costs. If everyone had private insurance policies, a person who lived this badly would be charged massive insurance premiums, and again everyone around them would see the train wreck of their actions, learn to live better, and society would improve.

Instead the cost of bad choices are levied against everyone at the company, and the person continues to live irresponsibly, and no one learns anything, and the madness continues.

This is why the free-market system is so effective when it's allowed to work. The problem is, government is preventing that system from functioning.

 

http://health.clevelandclinic.org/2013/06/obesity-is-now-considered-a-disease/ Obesity is a disease...disease requires medical treatment.

 

Like I say in my auto signature; all we need to do is look in our mirrors to find both the problems and the solutions. I suppose some of this stems from lack of education/information, physical/psychological issues, and those who simply don't care. Unfortunately all of these behaviors add up to higher medical expense and lower productivity and lesser quality of life. I don't see any reason to worry about health care costs because IMO there's nothing that can change it. People are less healthy, more whiny babies, more drugs, and amazingly most everyone demands state-of-the-art medical care with near perfection results but are not willing to pay for these demands. I know one person who has terminal cancer, has been given a few months to live, is 90 years old, yet Medicare continues to encourage chemo treatments with numerous x-rays, scans, office visits, medications, etc. the entire health care system is out of control...sort of like the USPS except the medical industry can just keep raising prices. Also like the gun debate in which the government will never take away the 300+ million guns in our society; government will never take away the 'entitlement' to health care or other government assistance programs. Meanwhile while the sales of alcohol, tobacco, crap food, gambling, illegal drugs, $200 athletic shoes, etc. continues to increase, this just shows there's money in people's hands to pay for health care but health care spending is unlikely to trump the 'fun' and entitled spending mentioned above...

 

Yes, people have called obesity a disease. It is not. Period. It's not. You show me the virus that causes obesity.

Tell me, are the people in impoverished nations in Africa, all immune to this 'disease' of yours? Why don't they catch this disease?

It's not a disease, anymore than smoking is a disease, or jumping off a bridge is a disease, or any other stupidity and nonsense is a disease.

Doctors love to call everything a disease, because it gains them more work. That doesn't make it true.

 

You don't need a 'virus' to be considered a disease?

Obesity is genetic or a lifestyle choice with 95% of obesity being the latter.

Regarding Africa...http://uk.news.yahoo.com/urges-action-against-obesity-022719459.html#GDFdbJm

BTW; as long as people are obese doctors don't need to do anything to gain more work...

 

How convenient to call obesity a disease, what a joke! Watch out overweight people because what employer is going to hire you if you have a disease called obesity. Are employers going to have a scale at the interview to determine your weight before even looking at your resume? I guess that is one way to cure them by never giving them a job. Do they also want to send them to death camps too?

 

The FDA says obesity is a disease...it's not convenient...and it's not a joke. What is a joke is not understanding or caring about the health effects of obesity as well as other limitations this places on the individual.

Don't really understand your rant??

 

Healthcare spending right now is the lowest since they started recording it 50 years ago. The majority of spending in healthcare are people that are disabled or elderly that live in nursing homes. Businesses would not self-insure that currently cover 80 million workers if they had employees that chose to live a unhealthy lifestyle that would drive up cost. The rising cost of premiums in the employment sector is driven by purely greed simply because this population seldom require health services.

 

Based on what are you making these claims?