2020 Democratic Primaries/General Election Thread

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Arles

That's for familes without employer-sponsored coverage and doesn't factor in state subsidized coverage for lower income people. If you factor in people with employer sponsored care and state "Access" subsidized care, the premiums actually paid by families are much lower. Very few people actually paid $1,100 a month. Most pay closer to $450 a month if you consider employer-sponsored plans for workers and state-subsidized plans for lower income:

The employer portion is part of your compensation.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

That's true in a lot of states, but wildly low in other states. My fairly modest home includes 8k in property taxes. It's very easy for middle class folks to have 10k or more in property taxes.

Mine are almost 11K. In Oregon they were just as high.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I wonder if any of that has to do with lifestyle?

In general physical laborers are lower paying ( yes I know there are some well paying jobs). I wonder if they tend to eat more processed foods, etc...

In my experience, and it's purely anecdotal, physical laborers tend to drink a lot. A buddy of mineis an iron worker and has some crazy stories.

Perhaps, but being a part of the working poor generally sucks. There's a reason basically everyone in that situation wants a better life for their kids. For those of us relatively healthy and uninjured, it's hard to imagine living every day in pain, but that's common for laborers.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Arles

I support unions in fields where the market will not balance out the compensation. There is no revenue brought in by police or fire, so local areas could vote to cut their salaries until they were non-existent with no checks or balances. For a software developer, the company they work for either generates products for sale or their skill has a value to the company at a certain rate. If a company cuts a software developer's salary 30%, there are dozens of other companies willing to pay them a market rate. If a city cuts a policeman's salary 30%, his options are to either move to another city/state or find a new profession. Plus, you have the city safety aspect of having all the police officers leave.

This isn't Upton Sinclair's jungle when it comes to most jobs in the US. But, we do still need unions for public good professions to protect the workers and ensure they get a wage that keeps good people doing those jobs. I'd even classify Teacher's unions in the police/fire as needed areas.

So an employer can leverage the market but an employee shouldn't be able to? That's fine if it's your belief but don't claim you support a free market. Free market is about leveraging your position to get the best possible rate for yourself or company.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The employer portion is part of your compensation.

Agreed, but you don't get taxed on that compensation - nor does it take away from your take home pay. If we went to a single payer tomorrow, not only would I lose that 72% my employer pays, but I guarantee I wouldn't get a raise to make it up. Employers get tax breaks for providing health care so if they lose that tax break (if we went single payer), they aren't just going to give everyone a raise to make up that lost compensation for benefits.

The truth that no one who supports single payer wants to admit is that if employer sponsored coverage went away, you wouldn't make any more money in salary (for the most part). Plus, you would be paying a much higher tax rate to get worse coverage than you had before. So while it may help a percentage of under-insured or uninsured, it would also hurt a vast majority of workers with employee sponsored health care.

[Scoobz0202]

My GF has had horrible tooth pain related to her wisdom teeth. Needs them extracted. Given prescription Norco and an antibiotic. Has called at least 8-10 oral surgeons over the past two weeks. The shortest wait time has been 5 weeks and that's for the consultation even though she has told them her situation and she knows she needs them removed.




(posted initially in the wrong thread)

[Arles]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

So an employer can leverage the market but an employee shouldn't be able to? That's fine if it's your belief but don't claim you support a free market. Free market is about leveraging your position to get the best possible rate for yourself or company.

We will just have to agree to disagree here. Having an electrician union (as some states do) to artificially inflate wages and require paying high wages to under-performing workers isn't what I would classify as free market.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Arles

The truth that no one who supports single payer wants to admit is that if employer sponsored coverage went away, you wouldn't make any more money in salary (for the most part). Plus, you would be paying a much higher tax rate to get worse coverage than you had before.

That goes completely against economics. Why wouldn't your salary go up? If a company could reduce your compensation right now, they would. But you're saying there is a secret form of compensation that doesn't count as compensation?

[thesloppy]

My half-baked theory is that folks in the rural and sub-urban areas of the US might be getting a radically different healthcare experience than folks in the cities (at least in terms of wait times), which muddies the issue a bit.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That goes completely against economics. Why wouldn't your salary go up? If a company could reduce your compensation right now, they would. But you're saying there is a secret form of compensation that doesn't count as compensation?

In 2013, the percentage of workers belonging to a union was 11.3%, compared to 20.1% in 1983. The rate for the private sector was 6.4%, and for the public sector 35.3%

88% of total jobs and 94% of private sector jobs don't have unions. Yet, companies aren't constantly reducing compensations. For a vast majority of jobs, the market ensure people are properly compensated. My point is that there is a small subsection of jobs where the market can't do that (police, fire, teachers, etc), often because they are more "public good" type jobs. In those situations, you do need unions. But unions for private company jobs really aren't needed outside of extremely rare situations.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Arles

The truth that no one who supports single payer wants to admit is that if employer sponsored coverage went away, you wouldn't make any more money in salary (for the most part). Plus, you would be paying a much higher tax rate to get worse coverage than you had before. So while it may help a percentage of under-insured or uninsured, it would also hurt a vast majority of workers with employee sponsored health care.

Some would probably make more money in salary as employers tried to compete for workers (as they couldn't entice them with better health care options anymore).

And, I think we've gone over this, but it's better coverage, not worse. If you think single payer (or universal mandated non-profit insurance) health care is worse, we just don't even have the basic agreement to have a conversation on this.

I think you probably just need to come to the realization that the Democratic Party just isn't the place for libertarian ideas (and probably never has been). You may have had some of it in the Republican Party, but they decided they didn't care about that stuff either.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Arles

We will just have to agree to disagree here. Having an electrician union (as some states do) to artificially inflate wages and require paying high wages to under-performing workers isn't what I would classify as free market.

And if there is an abundance of electricians in an area, companies will pay less than market rate because they can. They have leverage. I don't see why it's bad for employees to use leverage too.

Just seems odd that only certain people should be allowed to utilize leverage in a free market.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Arles

88% of total jobs and 94% of private sector jobs don't have unions. Yet, companies aren't constantly reducing compensations. For a vast majority of jobs, the market ensure people are properly compensated. My point is that there is a small subsection of jobs where the market can't do that (police, fire, teachers, etc), often because they are more "public good" type jobs. In those situations, you do need unions. But unions for private company jobs really aren't needed outside of extremely rare situations.

Real wages have stagnated in the last 40 years. Asymmetrical information prevents workers from being able to adequately negotiate in the marketplace against employers. Workers combining their negotiating power evens the scales and prevents abuses (as does governmental regulation). Re: software developer - there are rampant abuses of overtime rules and regulations. And those workers can be and sometimes are mass laid off after a project is completed. Part of that is because software developers are not unionized and so can be treated poorly as they don't have individual bargaining power.

Markets generally treat workers as cogs in a machine. They don't care about them as long as their abuse contributes to the bottom line. Unions and regulation elevates people over profits and that's a view I think our society should have. Fuck the Market-uber-alles viewpoint.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Some would probably make more money in salary as employers tried to compete for workers (as they couldn't entice them with better health care options anymore).

But once the tax break for providing health care goes away and a single payer system exists, no company would provide health care anyone. So, it would be an equal playing field for all companies. The main reason employers cover 71% of employee health care premiums is because they get a tax break for doing so.

And, I think we've gone over this, but it's better coverage, not worse. If you think single payer (or universal mandated non-profit insurance) health care is worse, we just don't even have the basic agreement to have a conversation on this.

Right now, people at the company I work for can have the plan I have:
Get paid $25 a month in your HSA to be on it (no premium)
Have a $2700 family deductible where once that is met, the plan pays 90% coinsurance across the board. There's also an out of pocket maximum of $7,000 (including deductible).

So, if you put $300 pre-tax in a medical savings account each month, you would have $3,600 at the end of the year (plus the $300 from the company). Even if you spent to your deductible, that would be an extra $1200 to cover the 10% coinsurance. We are by no means the only company to offer this plan (it's a pretty standard plan from Blue Cross Blue Shield of AZ).

But you are saying that increasing my (or any other of our employees) taxes for a single payer would get them a better plan than 90% coinsurance with a pre-tax cost of $3,600 a year? There's no way.

I think you probably just need to come to the realization that the Democratic Party just isn't the place for libertarian ideas (and probably never has been). You may have had some of it in the Republican Party, but they decided they didn't care about that stuff either.

This gets back to my point of being a homeless voter with socially liberal and (somewhat) fiscally conservative leanings. There's definitely no space on the religious right republican side, but I'm always hopeful for a more moderate democrat (maybe I'm fooling myself here too).

[Arles]

I've had boring phone conferences for the past 2-3 days, so I've been able to be more active here. Usually, these types of discussions can get pretty nasty - so I'm thankful that you guys have kept everything civil. I realize I am coming off as if I know it all - and that's simply not the case. I'm just speaking from my own experiences and my real fears of a single payer system being a pretty big negative impact on the cost and coverage for many people with employee-sponsored care. But, there are a lot of people who don't have great coverage - so I get this could rub them the wrong way.

I'll probably be dropping back to lurker status on the political stuff, but I do appreciate the perspectives on this forum. (End of my PSA)

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Arles

But once the tax break for providing health care goes away and a single payer system exists, no company would provide health care anyone. So, it would be an equal playing field for all companies. The main reason employers cover 71% of employee health care premiums is because they get a tax break for doing so.

Right now, people at the company I work for can have the plan I have:
Get paid $25 a month in your HSA to be on it (no premium)
Have a $2700 family deductible where once that is met, the plan pays 90% coinsurance across the board. There's also an out of pocket maximum of $7,000 (including deductible).

So, if you put $300 pre-tax in a medical savings account each month, you would have $3,600 at the end of the year (plus the $300 from the company). Even if you spent to your deductible, that would be an extra $1200 to cover the 10% coinsurance. We are by no means the only company to offer this plan (it's a pretty standard plan from Blue Cross Blue Shield of AZ).

But you are saying that increasing my (or any other of our employees) taxes for a single payer would get them a better plan than 90% coinsurance with a pre-tax cost of $3,600 a year? There's no way.

This gets back to my point of being a homeless voter with socially liberal and (somewhat) fiscally conservative leanings. There's definitely no space on the religious right republican side, but I'm always hopeful for a more moderate democrat (maybe I'm fooling myself here too).

The part your company covers is part of your compensation. If your company didn't offer health insurance, your compensation would be shifted toward take home cash or other benefits.

Employers cover health insurance because it gives them leverage over employees. Turnover rate is much lower which saves them a lot of money. It also acts as a motivator because losing your health insurance can be more destructive to someone with sick family members than their salary.

Trust me, if there weren't laws and advantages to offering health insurance, companies would much rather just give you the cash and avoid the administrative costs.

[JPhillips]

If the argument is that money corporations get from reduced taxation/regulation won't go to workers, seems like we should just tax them at higher rates and use the money to pay for some of this stuff.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Arles

I've had boring phone conferences for the past 2-3 days, so I've been able to be more active here. Usually, these types of discussions can get pretty nasty - so I'm thankful that you guys have kept everything civil. I realize I am coming off as if I know it all - and that's simply not the case. I'm just speaking from my own experiences and my real fears of a single payer system being a pretty big negative impact on the cost and coverage for many people with employee-sponsored care. But, there are a lot of people who don't have great coverage - so I get this could rub them the wrong way.

I'll probably be dropping back to lurker status on the political stuff, but I do appreciate the perspectives on this forum. (End of my PSA)

I don't take any of this personal, it's just politics. Debating stuff is part of life whether its about health insurance or who the best QB in the NFL is.

My views have changed over the years on a lot of these issues so I keep an open mind toward things.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Arles

Right now, people at the company I work for can have the plan I have:
Get paid $25 a month in your HSA to be on it (no premium)
Have a $2700 family deductible where once that is met, the plan pays 90% coinsurance across the board. There's also an out of pocket maximum of $7,000 (including deductible).

So, if you put $300 pre-tax in a medical savings account each month, you would have $3,600 at the end of the year (plus the $300 from the company). Even if you spent to your deductible, that would be an extra $1200 to cover the 10% coinsurance. We are by no means the only company to offer this plan (it's a pretty standard plan from Blue Cross Blue Shield of AZ).

But you are saying that increasing my (or any other of our employees) taxes for a single payer would get them a better plan than 90% coinsurance with a pre-tax cost of $3,600 a year? There's no way.

Most single payer plans have lower coinsurance. You pay increased income (or payroll) tax. There would be no preexisting condition exclusions, lifetime or annual limits, etc (which the ACA banned, but if that is repealed, they are all back) and you would be able to get the care your doctor thinks you need. Do you realize how many times insurance refuses to pay for procedures your doctor is adamant that a Participant requires? Denials for claims deemed medically necessary by a doctor (including ER doctors mind) would not occur. Speaking of Blue Cross and Blue Shield, they have been in the news recently because of 'surprise billing' - they have told people that when they went to the emergency room it wasn't a 'true emergency' and therefore nothing will be covered and they are on the hook for all of it (and is being sued by some State Department of Insurances about it). That is something that single payer healthcare would not do.

So yes, it'd be a much, much better plan. Because all of the bullshit that insurance companies do to prevent paying for procedures that doctors think is medically necessary won't happen.

Here's part of your entire problem. You are ONLY looking at cost and not a quality. And even in looking at cost you are saying it's worse for me-me-me with a cadillac sort of plan that has no premiums and then extrapolating it to say it's a worse financial system for everyone (99% having worse health care plans than that - the vast majority of people pay premiums). And you are simply not looking at the horror stories people have had in dealing with insurance carriers.

You are literally not talking about health coverage. You are talking about cost.

Seriously why do you think so many people are complaining about health insurance? Some of them are uninsured or underinsured, but a lot of them are those that had to deal with health insurance companies that just didn't give a shit about them and tried to deny medically necessary procedures which would have put those Participants in the poor house.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Perhaps, but being a part of the working poor generally sucks. There's a reason basically everyone in that situation wants a better life for their kids. For those of us relatively healthy and uninjured, it's hard to imagine living every day in pain, but that's common for laborers.

That's not hard to imagine. That's me. I nearly died last year. I have a laundry lists of aliments, with congestive heart failure and stage 3 kidney disease at the top, along with arthritis in my neck and back. The problems mostly exacerbated because I was without insurance for years. My work did not offer it, and the ACA plans were horrible and too expensive in my area. I racked up tens of thousands of dollars in medical debts for very limited care. Starting this tear, I picked up a ACA plan. I pay a lot, it pays out next to nothing. By the actuary tables, the probability I have more than 10 years left is less than 50%. Yet, I am still working a very psychical job in the sun, because if I don't my family will lose everything.



I am for a public option very selfishly (probably the opposite of Arles who is against it selfishly). Even though I am seeing 3-5 doctors every 3 months at great expense out of pocket, I constantly have to turn down test and procedures because I just don't have the money.


Of course, the GOP would tell me to shut up and die quietly in the corner. Or ask why I didn't pull myself up by the boot-straps to become a millionaire. If you aren't smart, and you aren't lucky, you should suffer while cheering on tax-breaks for the wealthy.

[thesloppy]

That sounds frustrating, sorry GD.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Arles

But once the tax break for providing health care goes away and a single payer system exists, no company would provide health care anyone. So, it would be an equal playing field for all companies. The main reason employers cover 71% of employee health care premiums is because they get a tax break for doing so.


Right now, people at the company I work for can have the plan I have:
Get paid $25 a month in your HSA to be on it (no premium)
Have a $2700 family deductible where once that is met, the plan pays 90% coinsurance across the board. There's also an out of pocket maximum of $7,000 (including deductible).

So, if you put $300 pre-tax in a medical savings account each month, you would have $3,600 at the end of the year (plus the $300 from the company). Even if you spent to your deductible, that would be an extra $1200 to cover the 10% coinsurance. We are by no means the only company to offer this plan (it's a pretty standard plan from Blue Cross Blue Shield of AZ).

But you are saying that increasing my (or any other of our employees) taxes for a single payer would get them a better plan than 90% coinsurance with a pre-tax cost of $3,600 a year? There's no way.


This gets back to my point of being a homeless voter with socially liberal and (somewhat) fiscally conservative leanings. There's definitely no space on the religious right republican side, but I'm always hopeful for a more moderate democrat (maybe I'm fooling myself here too).

If Biden isn't moderate enough for you, I'm not sure you're being realistic. I mean, we're not going to nominate Manchin.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That goes completely against economics. Why wouldn't your salary go up? If a company could reduce your compensation right now, they would. But you're saying there is a secret form of compensation that doesn't count as compensation?

How does this go against economics? They would have to renegotiate with all employees. I do not see most companies doing this. Now the intelligently run businesses might extend this proactively, but I would be surprised if many companies do it.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

How does this go against economics? They would have to renegotiate with all employees. I do not see most companies doing this. Now the intelligently run businesses might extend this proactively, but I would be surprised if many companies do it.

If they can cut compensation without anyone caring, why aren't they doing it now?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Most single payer plans have lower coinsurance. You pay increased income (or payroll) tax. There would be no preexisting condition exclusions, lifetime or annual limits, etc (which the ACA banned, but if that is repealed, they are all back) and you would be able to get the care your doctor thinks you need. Do you realize how many times insurance refuses to pay for procedures your doctor is adamant that a Participant requires? Denials for claims deemed medically necessary by a doctor (including ER doctors mind) would not occur. Speaking of Blue Cross and Blue Shield, they have been in the news recently because of 'surprise billing' - they have told people that when they went to the emergency room it wasn't a 'true emergency' and therefore nothing will be covered and they are on the hook for all of it (and is being sued by some State Department of Insurances about it). That is something that single payer healthcare would not do.

So yes, it'd be a much, much better plan. Because all of the bullshit that insurance companies do to prevent paying for procedures that doctors think is medically necessary won't happen.

Here's part of your entire problem. You are ONLY looking at cost and not a quality. And even in looking at cost you are saying it's worse for me-me-me with a cadillac sort of plan that has no premiums and then extrapolating it to say it's a worse financial system for everyone (99% having worse health care plans than that - the vast majority of people pay premiums). And you are simply not looking at the horror stories people have had in dealing with insurance carriers.

You are literally not talking about health coverage. You are talking about cost.

Seriously why do you think so many people are complaining about health insurance? Some of them are uninsured or underinsured, but a lot of them are those that had to deal with health insurance companies that just didn't give a shit about them and tried to deny medically necessary procedures which would have put those Participants in the poor house.

All this.

I can't speak to whether single payer will be lower or higher cost (anyone with links to that?).

I have been on a company plan or another for most of the past 15 years, and if that is someone's experience and they have been relatively healthy, then I can see why they would see company insurance going away as a bad thing. Especially with what it's like going through ACA, which I have also done.

The problem is that government has handed too much power over to health care providers, health insurers and Big Pharma, who all conspire to keep medical costs high, and thus premiums high-- most of which are paid by companies through their plans. We're all being fucked over, more or less, and the current government isn't doing anything to protect us.

If single payer forces the health care industry to be more honest and open with their costs and forces them to accept medically necessary procedures, then I am all for it.

There is a reason we're behind in health care to so many other developed nations. It's not because of our ideology on paying for public services (free market vs socialism), but because in our country, health care is the biggest grift going on.

Considering here at FOFC we're mostly sedentary desk jockeys heading into our 40s, 50s and 60s, this subject should be of the highest importance to us. Our very lives (and the quality of them) are the chips on the table in a game heavily rigged to benefit the "house."

[RainMaker]

Also wouldn't businesses be lobbying as hard as they could for universal health care if that were the case? If they could just cut their costs per employee that much with a simple bill, I think they'd be all over it.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

The problem is that government has handed too much power over to health care providers, health insurers and Big Pharma, who all conspire to keep medical costs high, and thus premiums high-- most of which are paid by companies through their plans. We're all being fucked over, more or less, and the current government isn't doing anything to protect us.

This. Providers, Payers, Pharma & Med Products, all need to be reworked in a new model. I would toss out individual expectations and responsibilities also need to be defined as part of this debate.

[Radii]

Robert Reich: Is America Becoming a Third World Country? - YouTube


Wasn't sure whether to post this here or in the Trump thread. Its a very short overview but a worthwhile one IMO.

[Atocep]

A fascinating interview with Raj Chetty, one of the top economists in the country.

Raj Chetty: the American dream is alive in Canada, fading in America - Vox

The main punchline that they arrived at is that programs that invest in kids tend to have very high rates of return. Sometimes, they even have infinite rates of return, meaning that they completely pay for themselves. So we actually find that programs like helping families move to better neighborhoods or certain types of early education programs do not cost the government anything on net. In fact, they pay the government back because the higher earnings that kids end up achieving later in their lives translate into additional tax revenue such that they more than offset the costs of the programs.

The lesson of this analysis is that we should look at programs that invest in kids differently. We shouldn’t look at them as costing society. If designed well, many of them could actually save taxpayers money while increasing mobility and reducing inequality.

One cornerstone of [the American dream] is the idea that through their hard work, any kids should be able to go on to have a higher standard of living than their parents. That was basically true for kids born in the middle of the last century. Something like 90 percent of kids born at that time went on to earn more than their parents did.

Over time, though, you see a really dramatic fading of the American dream. For kids who are entering the labor market today, it’s basically a 50/50 shot now as to whether they will do better than their parents. I think that’s what drives a lot of the frustration that people in America are expressing.

You found that the richest American men live 15 years longer than the poorest men, and the richest American women live 10 years longer than the poorest women. And in recent years, we’ve continued to see these gaps widen....

There are stunningly large differences in life expectancy between the rich and poor in the US. The benchmark I like to use is the CDC estimates that if we were to eliminate cancer as a cause of death, we would increase average life expectancy in America by about three years. So think about the 15-year gap in that perspective — it’s five times as large.

If you were an immigrant choosing where to go and have the best chances of climbing the income ladder, then statistically you’d have a better shot of achieving “the American dream” if you’re growing up in Canada or in many Scandinavian countries than the United States. That’s just a fact. If you’re in a lower-middle-income family, you’re more likely to climb the income ladder in those countries.

[RainMaker]

That's a good read. The financial stuff has been around for awhile. That it's cheaper to provide services than pay for it on the back end. But we have a weird sadistic element of society who enjoys it.

[molson]

"If you’re in a lower-middle-income family, you’re more likely to climb the income ladder in those countries."

Why are more people dropping down income brackets in those countries? How exactly does that manifest? Are they losing their jobs? Are their wages decreasing as they get older?

[JPhillips]

You're ignoring the fact that people age. As you get older, you generally get more money and move up the income ladder. You aren't kicking someone out of your new bracket, people die, people are born. The problem in the US is that that movement isn't happening as much as in the past. Wealth is being concentrated in the hands of fewer families and their children start rich and end rich. The movement over time isn't happening.

[Edward64]

There's 2 types of mobility that Chetty studies - absolute and relative. Absolute has been declining, relative has been relatively stable.

No doubt we need to invest in kids, seems pretty logical its a sure fire return. The question is how and what. I'd toss out another often stated position of mine, increase highly educated immigrants and that's a pretty sure fire return also. The US is not making enough babies, we are below the replacement rate.

[molson]

So won't income mobility be better if more people are worse off than their parents? Those seem like competing concepts. We want people to move up relative to others, but we also don't want anyone doing worse than their parents that they're replacing. And not just the super rich. From someone to move up from the 2nd 20% to the 3rd 20%, someone, or someone's child who they are replacing, had to drop down from the 3rd to 2nd. Someone's upper middle class kid has to be worse off than their parents (relative to others), and drop down below someone's lower middle class kid who greatly exceeds his parents. I think that's fine, a country is better off if we recognize the talent in the lower classes. But I don't see a lot of attention paid to that necessary part of the equation.

I think standard of living is a more important concept than wealth and income relative to others. If we nuked the top 10% and their wealth from the face of the earth, our income equality and mobility numbers would look better. But we wouldn't be any better off, and we'd be deprived of a lot of tax revenue. There's not a fixed amount of money in the world. Capitalism creates wealth. I think the super-rich are an asset that should just be taxed much, much, much more.

Edit: I also wonder if the difference between the 2nd 20% and the 3rd 20% in income and/or wealth someplace like Sweden or Denmark is so small because so many people are basically in the same boat financially, that it might not take much at all to drop or rise one bracket. Where in the U.S., a similar increase relative to others would be much more statistically unlikely, but much more noticeable to your standard of living.

[Edward64]

Chetty's definition of the American Dream is

One cornerstone of [the American dream] is the idea that through their hard work, any kids should be able to go on to have a higher standard of living than their parents. That was basically true for kids born in the middle of the last century. Something like 90 percent of kids born at that time went on to earn more than their parents did.

Over time, though, you see a really dramatic fading of the American dream. For kids who are entering the labor market today, it’s basically a 50/50 shot now as to whether they will do better than their parents. I think that’s what drives a lot of the frustration that people in America are expressing.

Maybe its how one define's the American Dream.
Most say American dream is within reach for them | Pew Research Center

While people differ on the meaning of the American dream, very few – just 11% of the public – say “being wealthy” is essential to their own view of it.

By contrast, majorities say “freedom of choice in how to live” (77%), having a good family life (70%) and retiring comfortably (60%) are essential to their view of the American dream.

Smaller shares say making valuable community contributions (48%), owning a home (43%) and having a successful career (also 43%) are essential to their view of the American dream, but relatively few (no more than 9%) say these are not important to the American dream.

However, 40% say being wealthy is not important in their vision of the American dream, by far the highest share among the seven items asked about.

Most say American dream is within reach for them | Pew Research Center[/url]

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

So won't income mobility be better if more people are worse off than their parents? Those seem like competing concepts. We want people to move up relative to others, but we also don't want anyone doing worse than their parents that they're replacing. And not just the super rich. From someone to move up from the 2nd 20% to the 3rd 20%, someone, or someone's child who they are replacing, had to drop down from the 3rd to 2nd. Someone's upper middle class kid has to be worse off than their parents (relative to others), and drop down below someone's lower middle class kid who greatly exceeds his parents. I think that's fine, a country is better off if we recognize the talent in the lower classes. But I don't see a lot of attention paid to that necessary part of the equation.

I think standard of living is a more important concept than wealth and income relative to others. If we nuked the top 10% and their wealth from the face of the earth, our income equality and mobility numbers would look better. But we wouldn't be any better off, and we'd be deprived of a lot of tax revenue. There's not a fixed amount of money in the world. Capitalism creates wealth. I think the super-rich are an asset that should just be taxed much, much, much more.

Edit: I also wonder if the difference between the 2nd 20% and the 3rd 20% in income and/or wealth someplace like Sweden or Denmark is so small because so many people are basically in the same boat financially, that it might not take much at all to drop or rise one bracket. Where in the U.S., a similar increase relative to others would be much more statistically unlikely, but much more noticeable to your standard of living.

It doesn't have to work that way. Take three people, 18, 40, and 80. Eighty is in the top quintile, forty is in the fourth, and eighteen is just entering the work force in the third quintile. Eighty year old dies, forty year old gets a promotion and moves up to the top quintile.

Forty year old has moved up, but nobody has dropped, people have exited and entered the workforce. A lot of income mobility is of this type.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It doesn't have to work that way. Take three people, 18, 40, and 80. Eighty is in the top quintile, forty is in the fourth, and eighteen is just entering the work force in the third quintile. Eighty year old dies, forty year old gets a promotion and moves up to the top quintile.

Forty year old has moved up, but nobody has dropped, people have exited and entered the workforce. A lot of income mobility is of this type.

Why doesn't that happen in the U.S.? When the 80-year old in the first or second quintile dies, who replaces him?

There are certainly factors of people dying and being born, but I think that downward mobility promotes upward mobility. If rich and upper-middle class families and their children retain their wealth relative to others, then it's going to be much harder for people below them to move up, relative to others. I think we'd all agree that someone born lower-middle class has a tougher road to upper-middle class than someone who is born upper-middle class. But if the economy and law and society were such that someone born upper-middle class could more easily fall down relative to others, than it makes it easier for achievers to move up. But economically, and legally, and society-wise we're so trapped into the idea that children are entitled to not only stay in the class they were born into, but to actually exceed their parents.

[Arles]

One cornerstone of [the American dream] is the idea that through their hard work, any kids should be able to go on to have a higher standard of living than their parents. That was basically true for kids born in the middle of the last century. Something like 90 percent of kids born at that time went on to earn more than their parents did.

Over time, though, you see a really dramatic fading of the American dream. For kids who are entering the labor market today, it’s basically a 50/50 shot now as to whether they will do better than their parents. I think that’s what drives a lot of the frustration that people in America are expressing.

That's not what I would consider the "American Dream" at all. It's not a competition with your parents, it's whether you have a work-family balance, make a good living and provide for your kids, and can somewhat comfortably retire when you hit a certain age. Whether my parents made 50K or 300K a year, that doesn't really matter. Parents just give you a better (or worse) starting point, but gauging your wealth against what they've made seems a little silly. So, if someone's dad made $300K and he only makes 150K - he's failed to grab the American dream? On the flip side, if someone's dad made 40K and they make 60K - they've completely attained the American Dream and are set for life?

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Arles

That's not what I would consider the "American Dream" at all. It's not a competition with your parents, it's whether you have a work-family balance, make a good living and provide for your kids, and can somewhat comfortably retire when you hit a certain age. Whether my parents made 50K or 300K a year, that doesn't really matter. Parents just give you a better (or worse) starting point, but gauging your wealth against what they've made seems a little silly. So, if someone's dad made $300K and he only makes 150K - he's failed to grab the American dream? On the flip side, if someone's dad made 40K and they make 60K - they've completely attained the American Dream and are set for life?

I think you're cherry picking part of the point and taking it directly at face value rather than looking big picture.

As mentioned above, the American Dream is going to be something different for everyone. However, nearly everyone will measure it as some sort of financial success. Maybe not what we'd consider true wealth, but "freedom of choice in how to live", "good family life", and "retiring comfortably" are the most popular things listed. Guess what a good education and good job does? It greatly increases the chances for those those things. Guess what taking the advantages given to you by your parents and building off of it does? Increases those chances. Thus, the best way to measure that across 350+ million people is took measure children's earning against their parents. Is it not telling that until the middle of the 1950s 90% of children would outearn their parents and that number has dropped to 50%?

Economic and Social mobility are hallmarks of what everyone would consider the American dream. Read the interview, look at the studies listed and noted and you see that the American Dream is dying in this country. The statistics show it. It doesn't matter if people feel the American Dream is within their reach because the facts do not bear that out.

One of the primary reasons I posted the interview, though, was because of the discussion on healthcare and the impact being wealthy has on your health. Based on the data we have, creating a healthcare system that's available to everyone would likely have a more positive impact on life expectancy in this country that curing cancer. If that doesn't actually move people to realize that the privatized insurance system is broken beyond repair then they very likely fall in the group with the extra 15 years of life expectancy and don't want to risk that dropping a little by giving the peasants similar access.

[Edward64]

There is absolute and relative mobility. I think relative mobility gets lost in this discussion.

Absolute compares Parent & Child $ adjusted for inflation. Chetty's tax data does show that a Child has significantly reduce chance to make more than Parent.

Relative compares Parent & Child relative positioning. If are Parent is in the 3rd quintile, the odds of you staying in the 3rd quintile has been "stable"

Absolute:


Relative:

[Edward64]

I don't think Chetty was trying to define the American Dream. I think all he was saying is his analysis is one factor into understanding achieving the American Dream is trending downward. Its one (and a significant) data point.

Criticisms of Chetty's analysis re: absolute mobility. I think both authors will agree absolute mobility has decreased but they have issues with Chetty's methodology.

Misconceptions in Raj Chetty’s “Fading American Dream� | Cato @ Liberty
https://freopp.org/the-new-chetty-bo...e-3b7e60d93b24

A key counter:

Chetty said children born in 1940's had a 90% chance at better absolute mobility and children in born in 1980's now have a 50% chance. The beef with this is 1940's was after the Depression and it makes sense that the 1940's cohort had a higher %. Therefore, is it valid to say 90% is the benchmark?

One of the links (former Pew researcher) also has several other quibbles. He agrees it is lower now but not at 40% points. He puts absolute mobility in mid-70's.

Re: Vox link on Canada vs US. In Chetty's own words

Runtime Error

And so the fact that Canada is at 13 percent means that Canada actually has quite a high level of social mobility relative to the 7½ percent in the U.S. It says that a child’s odds of achieving the “American dream,” in some sense, are twice as high if she is growing up in Canada rather than in the U.S.

Those cross-country comparisons draw a lot of interest, but they are difficult to interpret because there are many differences across countries, starting from the fact that the income distribution is much more compressed in Canada and Denmark than in the U.S. (making it easier to climb from the bottom fifth to the top fifth there than in the U.S.). What’s more striking and informative, in my view, is that there is actually even more variation in your odds of moving from the bottom to the top, within the United States than among countries.

For example, for children growing up in places like Salt Lake City, Utah, or San Jose, California, the odds of moving from the bottom fifth of the national income distribution to the top fifth are more than 12 percent or even 14 percent in some cases, more than virtually any other developed country for which we have data.

[Edward64]

So is the American Dream alive? Guess it depends on how you define it but yes. The absolute mobility is an important input into American Dream but not the key indicator and not the best way IMO.

I'm sure a large factor why I disagree with others on this board who say the American Dream is dying is because I see it from the lens of an immigrant. Warts and all, best country for a new immigrant.

Using Hispanics as the largest immigrant group and on the low end of the spectrum ...



Toss in Asians also.

Asian Americans | Pew Research Center

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Edward64

So is the American Dream alive? Guess it depends on how you define it but yes. The absolute mobility is an important input into American Dream but not the key indicator and not the best way IMO.

I'm sure a large factor why I disagree with others on this board who say the American Dream is dying is because I see it from the lens of an immigrant. Warts and all, best country for a new immigrant.

Using Hispanics as the largest immigrant group and on the low end of the spectrum ...



Toss in Asians also.

Asian Americans | Pew Research Center

The problem with continuing to cite polls in this what people feel is not reality. Me thinking I have a strong chance at waking up a billionaire tomorrow doesn't make it true.

And I'd argue that you see it through the eyes of someone that immigrated to America and have had some level of success here. That creates bias in your viewpoint. We have a million or so legal immigrants each year. I'm sure nearly every single one feels they made the best decision. Again, feeling something doesn't make it true and it would be easy to cherry pick the most successful out of those million and claim the American Dream is alive, but doesn't actually tell us much.

[Edward64]

It comes down to the definition of the American Dream which is personalized and not just am I making more $ than my parents.

Yes, definitely biased having immigrated and having seen opportunities the US provides vs in many other parts of the world. This gives me and the vast majority of immigrants the perspective of glass is half full vs half empty.

We'll agree to disagree.

[NobodyHere]

Scratch Jay Inslee from the race

[NobodyHere]

2020 election: Seth Moulton to drop out of race - POLITICO

Seth Moulton we hardly knew ye.




Seriously though, who are you?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

At this point, it seems fair to question whether Biden still has the mental faculty for this.


Biden Says He Was Vice President During Parkland Shooting

And now this...

The Hill on Twitter: ""Imagine what would have happened if, God forbid, if Barack Obama had been assassinated after becoming the de facto nominee. What would've happened in America?" Biden asked town hall attendees. https://t.co/i5IsNvJO3b"

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

At this point, it seems fair to question whether Biden still has the mental faculty for this.


Biden Says He Was Vice President During Parkland Shooting

Originally Posted by Atocep

the "poor kids vs white kids" thing

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

And now this...

The Hill on Twitter: ""Imagine what would have happened if, God forbid, if Barack Obama had been assassinated after becoming the de facto nominee. What would've happened in America?" Biden asked town hall attendees. https://t.co/i5IsNvJO3b"

Joe Biden in Keene, New Hampshire: "I’ve been here a number of times...I love this place. Look, what’s not to like about Vermont in terms of the beauty of it?” pic.twitter.com/YZBP4ybQ3z

— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) August 24, 2019



Something is wrong.


[QuikSand]

And it’s just a tapestry of vulnerability. Somebody step in and stop this.

[PilotMan]

Biden is a failure. He's never been anything short of a doting idiot.