Democrats starting to get the message? (2 Viewers)

[Hilts]

A true big, bold idea would be scrapping minimum wage and instituting a B.I.G.

This is the long term plan Americans really need. Hoping Democrats can start warming the country to the idea. 

 

[NCCommish]

It does, no question.  My sticking point with this argument is that the safety net is still in place on the business side.  With single payer, that safety net would be gone.  There would be no avenue for these companies to make up the profits they believe they lost overseas and in medicare.  This fact gives me great pause in believing things would stay the same or that medicare would easily scale.

Could.you break that down a bit? What safety net are we discussing? Single payer would get businesses out of the healthcare business and be a cost savings. In 2008 GM said it would save them 4k in costs against making cars here.

 

[The Commish]

Could.you break that down a bit? What safety net are we discussing? Single payer would get businesses out of the healthcare business and be a cost savings. In 2008 GM said it would save them 4k in costs against making cars here.

Well, as of today, we have a private market (group and individual) where insurance companies (or large corporations) are put in the position of negotiating prices with pharma companies.  Costs go unchecked and the people who aren't part of an insurance plan get gouged on prices.  Company X wants to average $50 per pill, but insurance has negotiated a lower price at $10 a pill so when the unfortunate come for treatment and don't have insurance they have to pay $90 a pill.  Company X is fine negotiating that price with an insurance company because they know they can make it up elsewhere.  That's the safety net I speak of.  Today, medicare is one of those "plans" where companies will give a concessions because they can make it up on the schmuck who has no power to negotiate.  

 

[NCCommish]

You are being a bit deceitful on what the polls say.  A large majority think the minimum wage is too low, but the number who think it should be $15 is very low, 12% according to this poll.  Around the $10 range is where most Americans think it should be. 

Well I was talking about a general raise and I did say the percentage depends on the final wage. But a poll taken just a few months ago showed a majority, over 50%, supported 15 an hour. By the time you get down to 10.25 you had 80% on board. Hard to do links on the phone I'll link to it when I get home.

And I think reasonable people can have a discussion about what that wage is. To be honest my research leads me to believe that a wage of 12.25 an hour would be a living wage for the majority of people in the country. That is for one adult supporting themselves. But by starting at 15 we have a better chance of getting to that. There is room to negotiate. Further the federal minimum is a floor so certainly high cost areas should have a higher wage. But a living wage in Mississippi is not as high as one in NYC.

 

[NCCommish]

Well, as of today, we have a private market (group and individual) where insurance companies (or large corporations) are put in the position of negotiating prices with pharma companies.  Costs go unchecked and the people who aren't part of an insurance plan get gouged on prices.  Company X wants to average $50 per pill, but insurance has negotiated a lower price at $10 a pill so when the unfortunate come for treatment and don't have insurance they have to pay $90 a pill.  Company X is fine negotiating that price with an insurance company because they know they can make it up elsewhere.  That's the safety net I speak of.  Today, medicare is one of those "plans" where companies will give a concessions because they can make it up on the schmuck who has no power to negotiate.  

Well of course if we go single payer we give Medicare the ability to negotiate and everyone would be covered by that.

And believe me every business I've ever been part of wants out of the insurance game.

 

[The Commish]

Well, as of today, we have a private market (group and individual) where insurance companies (or large corporations) are put in the position of negotiating prices with pharma companies.  Costs go unchecked and the people who aren't part of an insurance plan get gouged on prices.  Company X wants to average $50 per pill, but insurance has negotiated a lower price at $10 a pill so when the unfortunate come for treatment and don't have insurance they have to pay $90 a pill.  Company X is fine negotiating that price with an insurance company because they know they can make it up elsewhere.  That's the safety net I speak of.  Today, medicare is one of those "plans" where companies will give a concessions because they can make it up on the schmuck who has no power to negotiate.  

Well of course if we go single payer we give Medicare the ability to negotiate and everyone would be covered by that.

And believe me every business I've ever been part of wants out of the insurance game.

Exactly.  That's what gives me pause.  I see ZERO indication that our politicians would negotiate in our best interests as an electorate.  That bothers me.  Seems to be with self first and foremost, where the money flows in from and then electorate somewhere down the line.

So when the rubber meets the road and these companies push back after seeing their safety net go away, who's going to flinch first (if there is any resistance in the first place)?

 

[Henry Ford]

Exactly.  That's what gives me pause.  I see ZERO indication that our politicians would negotiate in our best interests as an electorate.  That bothers me.  Seems to be with self first and foremost, where the money flows in from and then electorate somewhere down the line.

So when the rubber meets the road and these companies push back after seeing their safety net go away, who's going to flinch first (if there is any resistance in the first place)?

If the only medications that Medicare pays for are the ones that negotiate to a reasonable price, the pharmaceutical companies will flinch in an overwhelming majority of cases.  

If a company has to choose between having the entire population eligible to buy its drug at $4 per pill and only people who don't need their insurance to pay for the drug at $10 per pill, it will do what makes money.

 

[IC FBGCav]

There is no way 80% of small business owners are paying their employees $15 an hour. 

15 employees here and none is under 15.00.  Plus they get 80% healthcare paid and 3% 401k match.  

 

[Cjw_55106]

15 employees here and none is under 15.00.  

What industry? 

 

[IC FBGCav]

What industry? 

XXX is your resource for creative design solutions. Our scope of services includes custom-built displays, permanent and interactive exhibits, trade show displays, retail and corporate interiors, product prototyping, graphic design, graphic production, and full scale fabrication services in North Carolina, and beyond.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

XXX is your resource for creative design solutions. Our scope of services includes custom-built displays, permanent and interactive exhibits, trade show displays, retail and corporate interiors, product prototyping, graphic design, graphic production, and full scale fabrication services in North Carolina, and beyond.

What was the point of XXX?  Found your company in 2 seconds

 

[The Commish]

Exactly.  That's what gives me pause.  I see ZERO indication that our politicians would negotiate in our best interests as an electorate.  That bothers me.  Seems to be with self first and foremost, where the money flows in from and then electorate somewhere down the line.

So when the rubber meets the road and these companies push back after seeing their safety net go away, who's going to flinch first (if there is any resistance in the first place)?

If the only medications that Medicare pays for are the ones that negotiate to a reasonable price, the pharmaceutical companies will flinch in an overwhelming majority of cases.  

If a company has to choose between having the entire population eligible to buy its drug at $4 per pill and only people who don't need their insurance to pay for the drug at $10 per pill, it will do what makes money.

Oh I get it.  I have to work at fighting my pessimism back on this.  I understand that the companies will end up doing what's best for them in the end.  I guess my concern is our politicians actually standing up for us instead of just rolling over to the businesses more than anything.  And I know we won't know that until decision time comes.

 

[Two Deep]

They are.  Because it's the right thing to do.  But it makes them less competitive with the big stores like WalMart whose employees are on public assistance. 

So do we get to stop providing public assistance if we raise minimum wage? If so I'm in.

 

[Cjw_55106]

XXX is your resource for creative design solutions. Our scope of services includes custom-built displays, permanent and interactive exhibits, trade show displays, retail and corporate interiors, product prototyping, graphic design, graphic production, and full scale fabrication services in North Carolina, and beyond.

OK? Doesnt really sound like the same skill level that being, say,  a cashier at a bookstore might require. They are probably paying what is expected in the specific market and occupation. 

 

[IC FBGCav]

OK? Doesnt really sound like the same skill level that being, say,  a cashier at a bookstore might require. They are probably paying what is expected in the specific market and occupation. 

Most have degrees here but there are at least 4 that don't. 

 

[IC FBGCav]

What was the point of XXX?  Found your company in 2 seconds

Good for you.  Stalkers goin stalk.  

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Good for you.

Well, wasn't sure if you wanted it out there or not so trying to let you know before you get Squistion'd.

 

[IC FBGCav]

Well, wasn't sure if you wanted it out there or not so trying to let you know before you get Squistion'd.

There is probably 50+ people on the board that know I work there so really not a big deal.

 

[jonessed]

It does, no question.  My sticking point with this argument is that the safety net is still in place on the business side.  With single payer, that safety net would be gone.  There would be no avenue for these companies to make up the profits they believe they lost overseas and in medicare.  This fact gives me great pause in believing things would stay the same or that medicare would easily scale.

It's not sustainable cost-wise.  It's going to have to be changed quite a bit to survive long-term as it is.

 

[drummer]

Democrats? What are they? Are they something archeologists just found?

 

[Chaka]

So do we get to stop providing public assistance if we raise minimum wage? If so I'm in.

Raising the minimum wage will pull people off the public assistance rosters, so I think it is already a benefit if I am reading your world view correctly. But is there any specific public assistance you are thinking of or just all of it?  

Where do you stand on corporate assistance?

 

[bueno]

XXX is your resource for creative design solutions. Our scope of services includes custom-built displays, permanent and interactive exhibits, trade show displays, retail and corporate interiors, product prototyping, graphic design, graphic production, and full scale fabrication services in North Carolina, and beyond.

Doesn't sound like minimum wage work.

 

[IC FBGCav]

Doesn't sound like minimum wage work.

We have a warehouse and some office type non degree positions.   But yeah, it's not a restaurant. 

 

[Henry Ford]

So do we get to stop providing public assistance if we raise minimum wage? If so I'm in.

A lot of it.  When people can work full time and still be well below the poverty line, they get food stamps, section 8 housing vouchers, Medicaid, etc etc.  You pay people a living wage and a huge chunk of that goes away.

 

[NCCommish]

Exactly.  That's what gives me pause.  I see ZERO indication that our politicians would negotiate in our best interests as an electorate.  That bothers me.  Seems to be with self first and foremost, where the money flows in from and then electorate somewhere down the line.

So when the rubber meets the road and these companies push back after seeing their safety net go away, who's going to flinch first (if there is any resistance in the first place)?

The VA negotiates drug prices and that seems to work very well.

 

[Henry Ford]

Also, for all the people who argue "it's just an entry level position"... first, of course not.  Lots of middle aged people working minimum wage jobs.  But second - don't we want people to be able to live on what they earn - not in luxury, but live on it - right from the start? As many have said, you get on public assistance and it starts to feel like treading water as you get off of it.  You went from $8 an hour to $8.50? All that happened is your benefits were cut and you live the same.  

But if a living wage is the minimum - as it was supposed to be from the very beginning of the minimum wage - then that cycle never really begins for a lot of people. 

 

[jonessed]

A lot of it.  When people can work full time and still be well below the poverty line, they get food stamps, section 8 housing vouchers, Medicaid, etc etc.  You pay people a living wage and a huge chunk of that goes away.

Not necessarily.  It depends on how employees and employers react.  

If I am a publicly subsidized employee and I can continue to qualify by working fewer hours I probably do that.  No sense earning more if I lose the subsidies.

 

[Henry Ford]

Not necessarily.  It depends on how employees and employers react.  

If I am a publicly subsidized employee and I can continue to qualify by working fewer hours I probably do that.  No sense earning more if I lose the subsidies.

Is that what's happened in Seattle?

 

[Henry Ford]

And either way, we've tried it this way for decades - letting the minimum wage lag so far behind a living wage that working people are in poverty.  And things have gotten worse and worse.  Let's give a real living minimum wage a shot again.

 

[jonessed]

Is that what's happened in Seattle?

I have no idea, but I don't necessarily believe what happened in Seattle could be applied nationwide anyway.

 

[Reg Lllama of Brixton]

BUT THAT MEANS QUARTER POUNDERS WILL COST $15!!!!!!!!!!

 

[jonessed]

And either way, we've tried it this way for decades - letting the minimum wage lag so far behind a living wage that working people are in poverty.  And things have gotten worse and worse.  Let's give a real living minimum wage a shot again.

I don't think it should be done without reworking welfare at the same time.

 

[Henry Ford]

I don't think it should be done without reworking welfare at the same time.

What do you want to do to rework welfare?

 

[Henry Ford]

(And by the way, the #1 welfare cost in this country is Medicaid.  So single payer healthcare would probably be the biggest welfare reform in the history of this country.)

 

[jonessed]

What do you want to do to rework welfare?

If we want to make minimum wage a real living wage it should be set at a place where someone working full-time would not need supplemental income and someone working part-time would only receive it on a sliding scale.

 

[tommyboy]

$15 minimum wage hurts to the poor and middle class the most.

don't see how that is "helping"

 

[Henry Ford]

If we want to make minimum wage a real living wage it should be set at a place where someone working full-time would not need supplemental income and someone working part-time would only receive it on a sliding scale.

Most "welfare" benefits are already on a sliding scale.

 

[jonessed]

Most "welfare" benefits are already on a sliding scale.

Not in CA.

 

[Henry Ford]

Not in CA.

Maybe you and I mean something different by "sliding scale."  What do you mean?  I mean people who make more money get less benefits.

https://ca.db101.org/ca/programs/income_support/calworks/program2b.htm


How Much You Get Each Month


When figuring out how much you should get in CalWORKs, your county human services agency will take the following steps:

1. Decide who they will consider part of your family
   
2. Decide if your family is “exempt”
   
3. Figure out what the maximum possible benefit is for your family based on your family’s size, living situation, and where it lives
   
4. Figure out how much income your family has
   
5. Subtract your family’s income (calculated in step 4) from the maximum benefit possible for a family like yours (calculated in step 3). The result will be the benefit your family will get.
   

 

[Chaka]

Whenever I see threads about topics like this it always baffles me that people are perfectly fine with corporate assistance (welfare) which, ever since Reagan pushed the whole concept of "trickle-down" economics, has truly only caused wages to stagnate and the middle class to shrink while the corporations, that we are supposed to be helping so they can provide better jobs for more people, only look out for the share holders by padding their bottom lines, increasing disbursements, raising prices and reducing costs by shrinking work forces and increasingly automating business process etc.

Corporate welfare costs you far more tax dollars than public welfare they just hide it better.

 

[The Commish]

Exactly.  That's what gives me pause.  I see ZERO indication that our politicians would negotiate in our best interests as an electorate.  That bothers me.  Seems to be with self first and foremost, where the money flows in from and then electorate somewhere down the line.

So when the rubber meets the road and these companies push back after seeing their safety net go away, who's going to flinch first (if there is any resistance in the first place)?

The VA negotiates drug prices and that seems to work very well.

Again....that safety net is in the back of the minds of all these companies.  There isn't an action I can think of that would calm my concerns because of this.  It would be a whole new world and the mindset and circumstances would be so different than what they are today, I can't think of an example of something that's actually happened that would be applicable.  

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Won't others wages then likely have to increase...Say I have an employee who has 5 years experience making $15.00 an hour, minimum wage then becomes $15.00 an hour...Morale issues ensue.

 

[jonessed]

Maybe you and I mean something different by "sliding scale."  What do you mean?  I mean people who make more money get less benefits.

https://ca.db101.org/ca/programs/income_support/calworks/program2b.htm


How Much You Get Each Month


When figuring out how much you should get in CalWORKs, your county human services agency will take the following steps:

1. Decide who they will consider part of your family
   
2. Decide if your family is “exempt”
   
3. Figure out what the maximum possible benefit is for your family based on your family’s size, living situation, and where it lives
   
4. Figure out how much income your family has
   
5. Subtract your family’s income (calculated in step 4) from the maximum benefit possible for a family like yours (calculated in step 3). The result will be the benefit your family will get.
   

Medi-Cal doesn't work like that.

 

[NCCommish]

Won't others wages then likely have to increase...Say I have an employee who has 5 years experience making $15.00 an hour, minimum wage then becomes $15.00 an hour...Morale issues ensue.

We are talking 7 years

 

[Henry Ford]

Medi-Cal doesn't work like that.

Well, no.  Medicaid in general (in fact health insurance benefits in general) don't work like that.  

 

[tommyGunZ]

It's amazing how the idea of making the working poor better off is immediately met with disgust and demand for cuts to their benefits elsewhere by so many. It's pretty clear that on the macro level, one segment of the population believes that the working poor need more, and the other segment believes they are already receiving too much and need cuts to increase motivation.  And people vote accordingly.

 

[jonessed]

Whenever I see threads about topics like this it always baffles me that people are perfectly fine with corporate assistance (welfare) which, ever since Reagan pushed the whole concept of "trickle-down" economics, has truly only caused wages to stagnate and the middle class to shrink while the corporations, that we are supposed to be helping so they can provide better jobs for more people, only look out for the share holders by padding their bottom lines, increasing disbursements, raising prices and reducing costs by shrinking work forces and increasingly automating business process etc.

Corporate welfare costs you far more tax dollars than public welfare they just hide it better.

I'm fine for completely ditching all corporate welfare.  I don't think it would ever be done though.  Both parties have their pet industries.

 

[Henry Ford]

We are talking 7 years

So?  Maybe he doesn't plan to give any raises to anyone in the next 7 years.  

 

[jonessed]

Well, no.  Medicaid in general (in fact health insurance benefits in general) don't work like that.  

When the biggest welfare tool has a flat income cap for eligibility we are going to run into problems when people near the cap.

 

[Chaka]

I'm fine for completely ditching all corporate welfare.  I don't think it would ever be done though.  Both parties have their pet industries.

So, what then?

Do we just ignore it? Rationalize that it is somehow okay to prop up corporations without propping up citizens?  To hell with the workers and consumers so long as the shareholders get their disbursements?

That isn't sustainable and it almost exclusively leads to ugly outcomes for everyone.