Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
I understand all of that. I'm merely looking for support for your assertion that the "vast majority" of american workers now face such fates. Frankly, I don't think that's a supportable assertion.

Well, if (1) studies in which participants say they live from paycheck to paycheck doesn't support it, and (2) studies showing the savings rate being in the low single digits doesn't support it, then what would?

Or, again, is it your contention that it's impossible to generate data that supports it?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Atticus was making the point that savings are down under Bush. I was asking if the numbers incluse retirement because alot of retirement money went down with the stock market, and that woould explain Atticus' chart drop. so my point wasn't that people retain it, my point was that people lost it.

I don't give a fuck, flying or otherwise, about the trend line or who's responsible for it. It's the figures themselves that support the proposition that most Americans would be positively screwed within two months of losing their household's primary job. They're saving or investing less than 2% of gross income. That's what living paycheck-to-paycheck means --- no savings or investment wealth to act as a cushion.

There are people on this board who would be living on credit cards if they lost their jobs. Or maybe that's the FB, where math is hard.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Goodness no. #5 is a very hot woman with implants. I know she's hot because she gets hit on in grocery stores. I think she's available because she posts on internet forums late into the night.

If you are available, you are less likely to post on internet forums late into the night. You would be out looking for potential partners.

It is the attached people who stay home at night.

I am simultaneously a workaholic and a huge procrastinator. But an attached workaholic/procrastinator.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
On the other hand, interest rates are low and the market sucks.

If I were smarter, I could relate this to the discount rate (we should be lowering everyone's, right?).

Yes, there's no better time to consume than now.

IF the market sucks, that's the time to get in.

How do you lower the discount rate of individuals? Make people afraid, very afraid, of what will happen if they don't have money in the future?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Well, if (1) studies in which participants say they live from paycheck to paycheck doesn't support it, and (2) studies showing the savings rate being in the low single digits doesn't support it, then what would?

Or, again, is it your contention that it's impossible to generate data that supports it?

I don't think that's his contention. I think his contention is that if there is no hard data definitively supporting it beyond a reasonable doubt, it's not true. I don't think we are supposed to ask for definitive proof that the opposite (people don't live from paycheck to paycheck) is true.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I worry about you. Stop reading all this nonsense. I only look at one insane right wing blog, and that's depressing enough that I do it every third day or so. You seem to make an hourly habit of scouring the net for this stuff- it can't be healthy.

I read a few blogs that discuss and link to other stuff. I have no patience to scour anything for anything.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
How do you lower the discount rate of individuals? Make people afraid, very afraid, of what will happen if they don't have money in the future?

Yes. By dismantling the welfare state. Aren't you paying attention?

I dunno how you lower people's discount rates.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
That's from "Ex Pats Against Bush", so it's reassuring that you're posting commentary from both ends of the left, at least.

That title is what made me make sure to post my caveat. ETA: The title, and the knowledge that -- having complained that I was jumping to conclusions about what happened in Spain with considering facts -- you would respond to this post with a snarky aside about the title and continue to ignore everything that suggests that the Spanish people were unhappy with the PP's handling of the bombing

FWIW, I thought the post was interesting because of the sense of the "word on the street" and the text-messaging flash mobs. Unclear to me whether Spain is really like that, or whether that author just has a flair for the dramatic.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
For most of them, aren't they right? If you're young and healthy, why should you pay a lot for health insurance, if all you're getting/using is one checkup a year? (Put aside need for catastrophic coverage).

Presumably Not me is libertarian enough to agree with you if you tell her that they're self-insuring, but maybe she wants to have the government impose some reserve requirements, etc.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
For most of them, aren't they right? If you're young and healthy, why should you pay a lot for health insurance, if all you're getting/using is one checkup a year? (Put aside need for catastrophic coverage).

Yes, they are right that it is cheaper unless they are one of the unlucky few who suddenly find themselves in need of catastrophic coverage. But if the catastrophic event is acute (like a car wreck), they get medical care through an ER as a self-pay who then doesn't pay (and then declares bankruptcy to discharge the debt).

I was just pointing out that people always think of the uninsured as those who have no other option. Many don't have another option, but there is a surprisingly high number who could be insured if they spent less money on cell phones/cable/clothing/partying, etc.

It is like that idiot from my law school. She grew up on medicaid, so she got used to not having to pay for health insurance. The law school made you either buy insurance through the school or show proof you had a policy. She got herself insurance through the school, but wouldn't spend the money to pay for her kid to have health insurance. Luckily for the child, no catastrophic events occured.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
AG's graph - at least, that type of quantitative analysis - is probably close to what I would have to see to think that Wonk's statement was being supported.

But I don't think that the graph does support it.

According to the IRS, for 2002, the last year Statisitics of Income are available, the median adjusted gross income was $28,111.

http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=102886,00.html

That puts a lot more people closer to the line where 79% said they lived paycheck to paycheck than it odes to the upper line where it was merely 58%. You can quibble all you want about how much over 50% you need to be before you can say the "vast" majority of working Americans are living on the edge. But I think you have to concede that at the very least most Americans are.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Presumably Not me is libertarian enough to agree with you if you tell her that they're self-insuring, but maybe she wants to have the government impose some reserve requirements, etc.

Insurance is one area where I am not libertarian (and the FCC regulating the public airwaves is another). So I am libertarian with a few exceptions. I am more of a moderate with a libertarian leaning.

The issue for insurance for me is that these people aren't just hurting themselves if they don't get the insurance. They are hurting me because if something catastrophic does happen, they get care through an ER and that means higher costs for those of us who do have insurance. That is called cross-subsidization in healthcare finance lingo.

In insurance lingo, these people are called free riders.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
We sort of live paycheck to paycheck and don't save enough.

Kind of a subjective test, I think.

So what?

The context of the discussion here is/was whether Americans feel lots of job insecurity and "live paycheck to paycheck" and whether that could influence their voting patterns and thereby create pressure for more protectionism and/or new labor laws that will "protect jobs" at the expense of a flexible labor market and maximum economic efficiency.

In that context -- perception is all that matters.

So, Gattigap's surveys may not show that "living paycheck to paycheck" is a true fact for a "vast majority" -- but show that a sizable majority (almost 2/3) of those with family incomes below $50k feel that way and a "vast majority" (79%) of the "working poor' (those under $20k) feel that way. What more do you want?

S_A_M

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Me


I was just pointing out that people always think of the uninsured as those who have no other option. Many don't have another option, but there is a surprisingly high number who could be insured if they spent less money on cell phones/cable/clothing/partying, etc.

.

Personally, I think of the uninsured as those who do not have an employer through whom they may purchase reasonably priced health insurance. Am I wrong (read: cite please, not me)? There are a lot of jobs that do not offer health insurance, even entirely on the employee's dime, and buying on your own is outrageously expensive because of the adverse selection problem. In other words, of those who do not have insurance, what percentage are nevertheless eligible to purchase that insurance through an employer or other group plan?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Me

In insurance lingo, these people are called free riders.

So, get read of the must-care rules for ERs.