Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Atticus was making the point that savings are down under Bush.

NO HE WAS NOT!

You guys really need to stop seeing everything through your prism of partisan warfare!

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
They're saving or investing less than 2% of gross income.

I thought that was Bilmore's question: are they saving less than 2%, or saving and investing less than 2%, of gross income? Generally, saving rate data includes only pure savings, not investments (be it in 401(k)s, mutual funds, real property, insurance, pensions, annuities, whatever - i.e.: it does not include productive uses of capital or most common forms of private retirement savings.) It is one (though surely not the only) reason the US's savings rates are so low in comparison to many other countries - Americans have higher rates of home ownership and financial investment than people elsewhere, and those amounts are (usually) not included in "savings" calculations.

Also, it is more usual to calculate the savings rate based on disposable (after tax) income, not gross.

[bilmore]

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?

No, the data type that AG set out would be the proper means to support this assertion, if it were true. My point is that, when you chart out the savings rates for the last twenty years, there's not a whole lot of variance. We have been, for years, a poorly-saving society. There's always a big dip in savings rate ofter market crashes, as people stop thinking that savings are a good use for money, but what I saw on AG's chart does NOT support "the vast majority" . . .

Keep in mind, the statement I'm reacting to is, "the vast majority of americans are living paycheck to paycheck".

(Now someone will post about how horrible it is to not have spare money, and how that fact alone proves Wonks point.)

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
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?

Insurance can be outrageously expensive even if you have the opportunity to buy at group rates thru your employer, esp. if your employer has a pool of employees that tends to be expensive. Some employers don't subsidize dependent coverage (or even employee coverage) and while the group rate makes it better, it still can be a huge proportion of income for someone making even a few thousand a month, let along for people making less than a couple thousand. I believe the COBRA (i.e, unsubsidized) rate at my employer is $450ish for individual coverage. That's coming up on 1/6 of income for someone making $36k, and that's not a family rate.

I can tell you that if you are young and healthy and only buying catastrophic coverage, it's pretty damn cheap.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
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?

Okay, if all we're speaking of is whether the vast majority "feel that way", and we're not putting a temporal element to it, I can live with that.

Like I said, I "feel that way".

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
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)?

All the data you want can be found here www.kff.org. There is a report called the Chart something dated May 2000 that has the data on who is uninsured.

Unquestionably, most of the uninsured in this country are the working poor who are not offered health insurance through their jobs or who cannot afford the employee contribution. But a surprisingly high number are those who could afford it but say they cannot simply because they are young, healthy, adults who choose to spend their money on other things. About 40% of the uninsured are single or married childless people. About 35% have incomes greater than 200% of the poverty level.

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
There are a lot of jobs that do not offer health insurance, even entirely on the employee's dime,

Agreed and I also said the working poor are the majority of the uninsured in this country. And for that reason.

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
and buying on your own is outrageously expensive because of the adverse selection problem.

Not true if you are a young, healthy adult. That is who I am talking about - these people who say that but never even bother to look into how much it costs. I see people who have many luxuries in life but won't pay a couple hundred dollars a month for a Kaiser plan, which is not expensive and that is full coverage even prescriptions. Give up their cell phone and cable and going out to restaurants and they can afford a health insurance policy. A catastrophic plan is dirt cheap (i.e., like $75 a month) for someone who is young and healthy and a nonsmoker.

It is the unhealthy who get screwed if they have to buy an individual policy.

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
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?

www.kff.org has that data somewhere on the website. Chart something May 2000 is the document.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Insurance can be outrageously expensive even if you have the opportunity to buy at group rates thru your employer, esp. if your employer has a pool of employees that tends to be expensive.

An employer based group plan is more expensive for a young healthy person because everyone pays the same premium per person/dependent. The young healthy person pays the same premium as an older unhealthy person in these employer based group plans. But the opposite is true for an individual plan - even full coverage are inexpensive for young healthy people.

Plus the employer plans are full coverage, usually with low co-pays.

I am only talking about childless people in their 20's who are healthy. They make up a surprisingly high number of the uninsured and many of them could in fact afford health insurance but choose not to buy it because they are spending their money on other things. They will say they cannot afford it, but they can. They cannot afford it only because they are choosing to spend their money on other things.

The crazy thing is that they won't even buy the catastrophic coverage which is incredibly cheap.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by bilmore
Keep in mind, the statement I'm reacting to is, "the vast majority of americans are living paycheck to paycheck".

This is clear from your argument, but it is also clear that the statement you quote above is irrelevant to S_A_M's argument. It really doesn't matter whether people are living paycheck to paycheck, or whether that feeling is coming from low salary or high expenditures, when people vote based on their perceptions, and people think they are living paycheck to paycheck, which is what the cited study shows.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Me
The crazy thing is that they won't even buy the catastrophic coverage which is incredibly cheap.

And, more importantly, it gets you out of the "pre-existing condition" trap.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So, get read of the must-care rules for ERs.

There is no way that will ever happen.

A better idea is to force people to at least buy catastrophic insurance coverage. Means test it and give vouchers for those who really cannot afford the premium.

We make people buy car insurance and pay social security tax, so I don't see how this would be so different.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by baltassoc
This is clear from your argument, but it is also clear that the statement you quote above is irrelevant to S_A_M's argument. It really doesn't matter whether people are living paycheck to paycheck, or whether that feeling is coming from low salary or high expenditures, when people vote based on their perceptions, and people think they are living paycheck to paycheck, which is what the cited study shows.

All true, but I thought I was reacting to Wonk's post.

(Actually, I think we had about seven completely different arguments going on at once there.)

("It appears to be green!!"

"No, no, seven!"

"Dammit, leave Pam out of this!"

"We've already established that it's flat . . .")

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
NO HE WAS NOT!

You guys really need to stop seeing everything through your prism of partisan warfare!

My bad. Maybe it was the whole "WHICH WILL IMPACT HOW PEOPLE VOTE" language that confused me into thinking some partisan point was being made.


I grew up lower middle class. I know about the things you lot read about in your blogs.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
(Actually, I think we had about seven completely different arguments going on at once there.)

Undoubtedly.

All true, but I thought I was reacting to Wonk's post.

I thought you were too.

I understand that you're trying to draw a distinction between whether people really are living "paycheck to paycheck" versus whether they just think they are. What I don't get is why you're making that distinction.

This point ...

My point is that, when you chart out the savings rates for the last twenty years, there's not a whole lot of variance. We have been, for years, a poorly-saving society. There's always a big dip in savings rate ofter market crashes, as people stop thinking that savings are a good use for money, but what I saw on AG's chart does NOT support "the vast majority" . . .

... eludes me. I agree that as a society we suck at saving, and have for years. I'm not talking about a temporal element, and am not really focusing on the 20 year trend line. There's also been lots of posts about WHY people don't save, because they've been wasting money on nonessential things. So what? Even if people have been pissing it away, if they encounter a financial problem, they're still screwed, right?

What I find baffling is your dogged insistence that people might just "think" they're living paycheck to paycheck, as though they're all really simply mistaken. Upon a job loss or similar mishap, are they really going to uncover that 6 months of savings under the mattress?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I understand that you're trying to draw a distinction between whether people really are living "paycheck to paycheck" versus whether they just think they are. What I don't get is why you're making that distinction.

Excuse me for butting in, but I think it was because of what taxwonk's original post said.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
What I find baffling is your dogged insistence that people might just "think" they're living paycheck to paycheck, as though they're all really simply mistaken. Upon a job loss or similar mishap, are they really going to uncover that 6 months of savings under the mattress?

Well, this is a politics board, for one, and, for another, it was my impression that the statement was put forth in a manner designed to characterize the current state of the economy - in other words, my perception was that a partisan point was being asserted.

If Wonk was simply saying, we don't save enough, and we never have saved enough, well, then, . . .