Thu Mar 25, 2004 2:42 pm
Originally posted by LordX
Cite please. Here's what I found:
How much are current UAW auto industry wages?
As of the second quarter of 2003, a UAW-represented assembler earns $25.63 per hour of straight time. A typical UAW-represented skilled-trades worker earns $29.75 per hour of straight time. Between 1992 and 2002, inflation-adjusted real wages for UAW-represented autoworkers increased by 13.5 percent. This is a compounded annual pay increase, after inflation, of 1.28 percent.
[b]
Doctors on salaries don't pay their own malpractice insurance.
Salaries are all-in numbers. As professionals, doctors are exempt from overtime regulations.
Interest rates are at an all time low. Wait untill they come right back up.
[/i]
Interest rates are at an all time low. Wait untill they come right back up.
[/i]
GDP is the product of number of workers * productivity of workers. With the continual increase in the size of the population, and the continual advances in productivity, GDP rises. This does not mean that people, as a whole, are better off. A rising tide only lifts floating boats.
The unemployment indicators are incredibly correct. That employment lags a recovery is true - but - but - not by 2 years. This isn't a lag, it's a jobless recovery. The unemployment figure of 5-6% only tracks people looking for work, but the payroll numbers track the number of jobs, and they are just not coming up like one would hope. [/B]
What do you want, a W2 for the last 10 years? Try adding in profit sharing, retirement benefits, health benefits, training, etc. Now, go look up what it actually costs for each employee.
Doctors do in fact pay malpractice insurance, although it can wildly vary from state to state. And not all salaried surgeons/physicians are exempt. Either way it affects their bottom line, and there's retirement benefits....who pays for that? Do you personally know any doctors? I doubt it. 10 years of accumulated debt and life invested. It's not as rosey as many think.
http://home.austin.rr.com/austintxmd/Pages/income.html#Overhead
Whether interest rates are high or low, you still need to make payments. Your reply is therefore, incomplete. Where are people getting the money to buy cars and houses? All I'm saying is the economy isn't as bad as what is being reported. If this were 1979, I'd agree. Michigan relies heavily on manufacturing; there hasn't been huge layoffs in the auto plants, and overtime is up.
Without increased productivity, the economy can never grow. Of course, people think that means the boss has whip in hand to prod more "work" out of the employee. That really is not what increased GDP means.
Thu Mar 25, 2004 2:54 pm
Originally posted by LordX
People often get into revolving debt to bridge gaps in employment.
Or being a teenage idiot like I was. (Now I'm an idiot in my 20's..
)
Thu Mar 25, 2004 3:00 pm
Well thank god you are older. So much for the wiser part.
Let me guess? The wiser part starts with Bud?
Let me guess? The wiser part starts with Bud?
Thu Mar 25, 2004 3:07 pm
Originally posted by RCglider
What do you want, a W2 for the last 10 years? Try adding in profit sharing, retirement benefits, health benefits, training, etc. Now, go look up what it actually costs for each employee.
Then you have to do the same for the Doctor. What, you don't think doctors don't get benefits?
Doctors do in fact pay malpractice insurance, although it can wildly vary from state to state.
No. Doctors who work for other peoples practices or for hospitals DO NOT PAY THEIR OWN INSURANCE COSTS. They don't. Really. They don't. See, the hospitals and practices pay those costs. They do. Really. I know the Republican spin is that every doctors pays their own insurance, but it's Just Not True.
And not all salaried surgeons/physicians are exempt. Either way it affects their bottom line, and there's retirement benefits....who pays for that?
Their employer, same as the Auto Worker. Except, the doctors have a better healthcare and better retirement plan than most auto workers, but that's beside the point - the point being that doctors make multiple times more than auto workers do - as they should.
Do you personally know any doctors? I doubt it.
I do. Do you?
10 years of accumulated debt and life invested. It's not as rosey as many think.
If it's not worth it, why do people do it? Why isn't there a market correction that would keep Medical School enrollments from being higher than ever before?
Your random webpage was the experience of one doctor, in one private practice. That having a solo practice is no longer economic is an example of the market working.
Whether interest rates are high or low, you still need to make payments. Your reply is therefore, incomplete.
No, it's not. You asked why home sales are up. The reason is low interest rates, which are expected to rise. That's the reason. Ask Alan.
Without increased productivity, the economy can never grow.
Well, that's just not true. In an equation that is Y = T(wL * kI), T, k and L can all grow to grow Y without any change in productivity.
Thu Mar 25, 2004 3:18 pm
Originally posted by Colonel Ingus
Well thank god you are older. So much for the wiser part.
Let me guess? The wiser part starts with Bud?
Hehe.. nope.
...and for the LordX vs. RCGlider debate...
I work for a hospital. The physician's group pays a group malpractice insurance premium, but physicians are encouraged to also purchase their own policies. So, you're both kinda right.
We also have our own counsel, so any lawsuits are handled by company lawyers.
Can't say the same for private practices, though, but this hospital does invite doctors who run private practices to become a facility under the umbrella of the hospital, and it's kind of funky how the billing works, but I can also say that it doesn't cost the doctor nearly as much as paying for their own malpractice insurance themselves.
However, if you look at the big picture, it would affect the pay of the doctors, because it increases the cost of the care. Healthcare is a tricky part of our economy (though it constitutes 1/9 of the GDP). Without going into details, I can tell you that doctors and healthcare are probably not the best topic to discuss when talking in terms of the economy as a whole, because of the convoluted nature of the billing and reimbursement process.
Thu Mar 25, 2004 3:29 pm
My Aunt is actually a malpractice lawyer. He firm is paid by the hospital, not the doctor.
Private practice is like a small business owner: you pay for the extras like insurance.
Also, that webpage was a joke, it was someone's free webspace from road runner.
Private practice is like a small business owner: you pay for the extras like insurance.
Also, that webpage was a joke, it was someone's free webspace from road runner.
Thu Mar 25, 2004 3:35 pm
Also, that webpage was a joke, it was someone's free webspace from road runner.
Hehe yeah I found one of those where the guy was kidnapped by Rigellians and impregnated with Elvis' baby.
Damn aliens stealing Elvis' DNA and inserting it into other men!
Thu Mar 25, 2004 3:49 pm
Hell... I might as well jump into the fray (or at least get my SPAM count up a bit. 
)
IMHO, Taxes are a necessary evil. Why? Because I like the police/fire dept./miitary/etc. I don't even mind paying a bit to help people that are down on their luck (or make poor choices in their lives).... BUT there is a point when taxation is too much. A point when government wants too much money and too much control over me. Personally, I think we are at this point now.
IMHO high taxation hurts the economy. Why? Primarily because of government waste and pork spending. (Both parties are guilty of this.)
I moved from South Carolina to Tennessee about 6 years ago and one of the primary reasons was low taxes in TN. Tennessee and a few other states do not have personal income tax. (Texas and FLA to name two more) Sure we have a high sales tax (9.75% if you consider city/county taxes), but SC had a 6% sales tax (and a 6% personal income tax). I consider the sales tax a "useage" tax. In essence I decided whether I wanted to pay taxes by limiting the items I purchased, NOT having the government mandate I pay the tax.
By moving from SC to TN, I figure I saved several thousands of dollars in taxes each year.... now here is the added benefit, Tennesse merchants also benefited from the products I purchased. Lower taxes in TN provided an increase to the economy due to my increased spending. (Money I would not have had in SC because it would have gone to personal taxes.)
Let me ask one question? If you owned a business would you go where taxes were high or low? I personally would go where taxes were lower. Say my business moved to TN, payed lower taxes, made more money... who benefits? EVERYONE! Because I hire Tennesseans and they in turn spend their money locally and the whole economy in Tennessee grows. Just the opposite is true with high taxes for companies.. they go where the taxes are lowest, thereby creating unemployment and a stale economy.
Anyway that's my theory... not sure how it relates to the topic at hand.
)
IMHO, Taxes are a necessary evil. Why? Because I like the police/fire dept./miitary/etc. I don't even mind paying a bit to help people that are down on their luck (or make poor choices in their lives).... BUT there is a point when taxation is too much. A point when government wants too much money and too much control over me. Personally, I think we are at this point now.
IMHO high taxation hurts the economy. Why? Primarily because of government waste and pork spending. (Both parties are guilty of this.)
I moved from South Carolina to Tennessee about 6 years ago and one of the primary reasons was low taxes in TN. Tennessee and a few other states do not have personal income tax. (Texas and FLA to name two more) Sure we have a high sales tax (9.75% if you consider city/county taxes), but SC had a 6% sales tax (and a 6% personal income tax). I consider the sales tax a "useage" tax. In essence I decided whether I wanted to pay taxes by limiting the items I purchased, NOT having the government mandate I pay the tax.
By moving from SC to TN, I figure I saved several thousands of dollars in taxes each year.... now here is the added benefit, Tennesse merchants also benefited from the products I purchased. Lower taxes in TN provided an increase to the economy due to my increased spending. (Money I would not have had in SC because it would have gone to personal taxes.)
Let me ask one question? If you owned a business would you go where taxes were high or low? I personally would go where taxes were lower. Say my business moved to TN, payed lower taxes, made more money... who benefits? EVERYONE! Because I hire Tennesseans and they in turn spend their money locally and the whole economy in Tennessee grows. Just the opposite is true with high taxes for companies.. they go where the taxes are lowest, thereby creating unemployment and a stale economy.
Anyway that's my theory... not sure how it relates to the topic at hand.
Fri Mar 26, 2004 7:07 am
Well, I steepped out for a while, and things got interesting...
First to address LordX:
Digging back into my old econ book, the effect of taxes is on the Keynesian multiplier. Raising tax rates reduces the multiplier, and so reduces the effect of adjustments in G, I, and C on final Y.
Y=(1/(1-b+bt+m))(C-bT+bR+I+G+X-M)
b=marg. prop. to consume
t=tax rate
m=marg. prop. to import
R=transfer payments
T=autonomous taxes (unaffected by income)
M=auto. imports
So, according to this model, cutting taxes would have no driving effect on the econonmy, only on it's response to its component inputs. By this argument, Bush is following good Keynesian economics to stimulate the economy, by increasing government spending to stimulate growth and lowering the tax rate to increase the multiplier and thus the effect of this stimulus. The same point has been made about Reagan, too.
That said, this equation comes with the caveat that it is an aid to common sense, not a quantifier of reality.
As for "target earners," these are people who have a financial goal, and will work towards it no matter what the tax rate. I would argue that these represent only a small fraction of US workers.
How? Dig back a couple pages into some of the links I posted. Historically, lower taxes have resulted in increased growth, resulting in increased revenues. You can also show this by looking at the eceonmic performance of different states now. You point to the Clinton-Bush era as counterproof. However, I think a case could be made that Clinton was riding gains in productivity that were external to tax and spending effects--a new form of production multiplier was introduced into the economy--taxing and spending policy could affect its rate of adoption, but the effect was larger than gov't effects. As for Bush, he's riding the back side of a recession, that was already underway when he started. Most of the IT jobs lost occured during this bust, so can we really blame his tax and spending policy for this? Both were the result of economic cycles that were not driven by gov't forces.
As for "everyone" buying new, bigger houses, and new cars, see what I posted several pages back about the dangers of assuming increased sales of a commodity meaning everyone is buying them. LordX is right that lower interest rates are driving these sales, and we may be in for a bust once it starts to climb, but we can't point to home and car sales as proof that everyone is doing well. It is more likely that only the top 20% are doing well, given the size of houses and cost of cars being sold. And consumer debt is also a huge factor too. A lot of people are living well beyond their means.
As for the evils of "job exportation," compare the number of farmers in American now with the number in 1900. Are we worse off? Where did all those jobs go? Why don't we have millions of famers wandering the streets looking for work, or trapped in low-paying, dead-end jobs?
That said, I think consumer debt poses dire consequences in the future. What happens when interest rates rise, housing prices fall, and people can no longer refinance their homes to cover their additional credit card debt? Our consumers and government have been living on credit for too long, and I fear the way it may come back to bite us.
First to address LordX:
Digging back into my old econ book, the effect of taxes is on the Keynesian multiplier. Raising tax rates reduces the multiplier, and so reduces the effect of adjustments in G, I, and C on final Y.
Y=(1/(1-b+bt+m))(C-bT+bR+I+G+X-M)
b=marg. prop. to consume
t=tax rate
m=marg. prop. to import
R=transfer payments
T=autonomous taxes (unaffected by income)
M=auto. imports
So, according to this model, cutting taxes would have no driving effect on the econonmy, only on it's response to its component inputs. By this argument, Bush is following good Keynesian economics to stimulate the economy, by increasing government spending to stimulate growth and lowering the tax rate to increase the multiplier and thus the effect of this stimulus. The same point has been made about Reagan, too.
That said, this equation comes with the caveat that it is an aid to common sense, not a quantifier of reality.
As for "target earners," these are people who have a financial goal, and will work towards it no matter what the tax rate. I would argue that these represent only a small fraction of US workers.
How? Dig back a couple pages into some of the links I posted. Historically, lower taxes have resulted in increased growth, resulting in increased revenues. You can also show this by looking at the eceonmic performance of different states now. You point to the Clinton-Bush era as counterproof. However, I think a case could be made that Clinton was riding gains in productivity that were external to tax and spending effects--a new form of production multiplier was introduced into the economy--taxing and spending policy could affect its rate of adoption, but the effect was larger than gov't effects. As for Bush, he's riding the back side of a recession, that was already underway when he started. Most of the IT jobs lost occured during this bust, so can we really blame his tax and spending policy for this? Both were the result of economic cycles that were not driven by gov't forces.
As for "everyone" buying new, bigger houses, and new cars, see what I posted several pages back about the dangers of assuming increased sales of a commodity meaning everyone is buying them. LordX is right that lower interest rates are driving these sales, and we may be in for a bust once it starts to climb, but we can't point to home and car sales as proof that everyone is doing well. It is more likely that only the top 20% are doing well, given the size of houses and cost of cars being sold. And consumer debt is also a huge factor too. A lot of people are living well beyond their means.
As for the evils of "job exportation," compare the number of farmers in American now with the number in 1900. Are we worse off? Where did all those jobs go? Why don't we have millions of famers wandering the streets looking for work, or trapped in low-paying, dead-end jobs?
That said, I think consumer debt poses dire consequences in the future. What happens when interest rates rise, housing prices fall, and people can no longer refinance their homes to cover their additional credit card debt? Our consumers and government have been living on credit for too long, and I fear the way it may come back to bite us.
Fri Mar 26, 2004 8:35 am
I'm surprised that we've got 10 pages of economic discussion, and nobody's said "ceterus paribus" yet.
Hehe.
Hehe.
over 10 pages YIKES!
Fri Mar 26, 2004 8:46 am
Yeah WOW.
altho won't be surprised if it goes on and on even more.
altho won't be surprised if it goes on and on even more.
medical malpractice insurance for LordX
Fri Mar 26, 2004 8:50 am
First, I don't believe you personally know any doctors outside of going in for a checkup or a procedure. If you did, you wouldn't be sticking your foot in your mouth on how medical malpractice insurance works. To make it real easy for you, here are a few links so I don't have to waste my time explaining it to you further.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/01/01/medical.malpractice/
http://www.ihatoday.org/public/liability/trib3-12.pdf
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/25/health/main565212.shtml
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2003/02/07/news/7224.shtml
FYI, the Trial Lawyer Association is one of the largest contributors to the Democrat Party.
And yes, I do have a friend that's an orthopedic surgeon in Columbus, Ohio. Also, up until September 2001, my sister was Health Services Administrator at _________ in Detroit. She quit to care for her husband with cancer.
The bottom line is, WE pay for these huge malpractice lawsuits and rising insurance costs.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/01/01/medical.malpractice/
http://www.ihatoday.org/public/liability/trib3-12.pdf
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/25/health/main565212.shtml
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2003/02/07/news/7224.shtml
FYI, the Trial Lawyer Association is one of the largest contributors to the Democrat Party.
And yes, I do have a friend that's an orthopedic surgeon in Columbus, Ohio. Also, up until September 2001, my sister was Health Services Administrator at _________ in Detroit. She quit to care for her husband with cancer.
The bottom line is, WE pay for these huge malpractice lawsuits and rising insurance costs.
Fri Mar 26, 2004 8:55 am
Originally posted by JimmyTango
My Aunt is actually a malpractice lawyer. He firm is paid by the hospital, not the doctor.
Private practice is like a small business owner: you pay for the extras like insurance.
Also, that webpage was a joke, it was someone's free webspace from road runner.
Of course hosptials have their own attorneys. DUH!!
As I did for LordX, I will do for you. I only posted that website to give a perspective from a healthcare practitioner's viewpoint.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/01/01/medical.malpractice/
http://www.ihatoday.org/public/liability/trib3-12.pdf
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/25/health/main565212.shtml
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2003/02/07/news/7224.shtml
Re: medical malpractice insurance for LordX
Fri Mar 26, 2004 9:06 am
Originally posted by RCglider
The bottom line is, WE pay for these huge malpractice lawsuits and rising insurance costs.
Yes, that is 100% correct. We also pay for the people with no insurance to be treated - because it's against the law to turn them away.
We also pay for the people who are unwilling to pull the plug on their loved one who is no more than a carcass kept alive by machines.
We also pay for the people who drive drunk - after all, they incur healthcare costs that will have to be paid by a lawsuit via automobile insurance, which drives up car insurance costs as well as healthcare costs.
So, you can't blame it simply on malpractice, in fact, uncompensated care and welfare bleed healthcare facilities more than malpractice ever has or ever will.
Re: medical malpractice insurance for LordX
Fri Mar 26, 2004 9:14 am
Originally posted by RCglider
First, I don't believe you personally know any doctors outside of going in for a checkup or a procedure.
Except for my father and my roomate, you're right. Oops - I guess I know my father and my roomate.
If you did, you wouldn't be sticking your foot in your mouth on how medical malpractice insurance works. To make it real easy for you, here are a few links so I don't have to waste my time explaining it to you further.
Your articles are about private practitoners. That they are described as working in a hospital does little to show if they own a practice or are salaried employees. They own a practice.
Ohio Valley Medical Center currently pays more than $10,000 a day for the state's malpractice insurance for the hospital. - Your CNN article
FYI, the Trial Lawyer Association is one of the largest contributors to the Democrat Party.
1. If you can't write Democratic, which is the name of the party, then this discussion is over.
2. So? The Insurance Industry is one of the largest contributors to the Rethuglican party.
The bottom line is, WE pay for these huge malpractice lawsuits and rising insurance costs.
To be this important, this must be a huge problem. How much gets paid out in settlements and judgements each year? It must be what, like a hundred billion dollars or something, right?
How about this. If there's actually less than $10billion dollars paid out in medmal verdicts and settlements each year, you say to me "wow, I didn't know the problem was that small."
If there's more than $10billion paid out in medmal verdicts and settlements, I'll never write the word Democratic again.