Key concept.....better for the country in the long run. You SSSocialist you. :p
Printable View
Key concept.....better for the country in the long run. You SSSocialist you. :p
I'm not denying that :D
Sure, but they will charge a higher premium. That's the point of insurance. And when insurance fails in those corner cases, a society may choose to subsidize certain things. That said, everyone may as well be a corner case because our insurance market is broken.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Disagree. Premiums are charged based on the risk factor an individual has. If an insurance company is using less data or is charging someone more/less then their are problems. If they are charging less then they either are endangering their financial strength or by necessity they are charging other individuals more. If they are charging more to people then they should be then those people are likely to find better deals elsewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
If an insurance company gets a reputation for doing everything they can to deny a claim how much business do you think that insurance company will get in the future?
There has been much controversy of insurers denying claims, even hiring UR companies with software specifically geared toward denials (Blue Cross, Aetna). They keep getting business because they have a monopoly in affording care, employer subsidies and corporate tax breaks.
Agreed with Dread --- our insurance market is broken. Using broken models topped on one another (health-insurance-government) is our recipe for failure.
So S&P has a negative outlook on the future of US debt. Anybody here thinks that's going to have an effect on the way things go in Washington once they get past the posturing that came with the first shock?
Eh I was mostly talking about auto/dwelling coverage not health insurance. Most people get their health insurance through employment so its not like they shop, price compare and research.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Premiums for auto/dwelling are going up, too. Some around 25% or more. And we're legally obligated to have this insurance if we drive or have a mortgage. Who left the FL homeowners insurance field after too many hurricanes and floods (was it State Farm or Allstate?) leaving no option other than a state-subsidized program?
Health insurance should be decoupled from employment, employer subsidy/tax break removed. Then we could see who's swimming naked when the tide rushes out....practically everyone. :bored:
Insurers left the Florida market because the state refused to allow insurance companies to adequately charge the rate commiserate with the risk. The shortage of insurance companies in Florida is almost entirely due to Charlie Crist.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Well thats the deadly mix of populism and capitalism you very often see in US politics. With some risks you have to admit that they can't really be insured. İf you then still insist on coverage the only solution is a state sponsored program. Forcing the risk upon private companies at a premium that doesn't cover the costs is a recipe for driving away those companies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Not sure I agree with this, because I do think we have a problem here. But I thought this was an interesting take on things:
Quote:
In Defense of the McJob: 5 Ways to Look at McDonald's Hiring Boom
McDonald's Pushes to Get 50,000 New Employees
BY DAN ARNALL
April 19, 2011
As McDonald's makes its nationwide push to get 50,000 new employees to join its ranks, it is important to put the "McJob" in perspective.
We've all heard that the average McDonald's job doesn't pay much. And you're right – it doesn't offer compensation that is anywhere near the pay for salaried positions filled by college graduates or skilled workers.
The data we've seen is that the entry-level McJob probably pays a little more than minimum wage. The company and sites that track wages suggest that many of those workers hired today will be making around $8 an hour depending in which area of the country they live.
A full workweek at $8 an hour gets you about $320 before tax withholding. That's $16,000 a year if you take two weeks off during the year for vacation. It's above the poverty line for individuals this year ($11,136 according to the Census), but below the level for a four-person household ($22,314).
So why would anyone want these jobs? Let me make a case.
These Job Aren't For Skilled Workers -- If you have a college degree, your expectation of lifestyle and compensation are based on your cohort of college-educated people. If you live in the U.S. and have just a high school diploma working means making less than your college educated peers (only 29.5 percent of Americans have a bachelors degree or higher). The latest jobs report shows the median weekly wage for a person with a high school diploma is just $633 a week -- $31,650 a year. An entry-level McJob is below that level, but is certainly competitive for less educated people without specialized skills or training.
These Jobs Are Great For Some People – Retired and looking to supplement your social security check (~38 million people)? Going to college and need some beer money (~11 million fulltime college students)? Stay-at-home parent and wanting to get some fun-money for the family vacation (~5 million women and men in this situation)? A part-time job at McDonald's (or any other fast-food restaurant) might offer the convenience and flexibility you need to make that work.
McWages Can Make A Big Difference For The Average Family – If you aren't the primary breadwinner, working part-time in a McDonald's can make a big difference to your family. Assume you work 3 days a week, adding about $800 per month to the family budget. That's almost $10,000 a year in extra cash. According to government figures, that would fully fund the family spending on food ($6,372), clothing ($1,725) and pay for 60 percent of the family healthcare spending ($1,875).
There's More to It than Burger Flipping -- The McJob can get better than burger flipping. If you have previous experience or could be a manager at the restaurant, the annual salary ranges from $20,000 - $60,000. About 40 percent of the McDonald's corporate staff (including the woman who runs the entire US for the company) started as hourly workers at the restaurants. You could even end up owning the place – 50 percent of the McDonald's franchise owners were entry-level workers at the restaurants. McDonald's jobs come with all the training you'd need to get started and the restaurants typically promote from within.
In the Aggregate, 50,000 New McJobs Add to the Nation's Growth – The new McJobs added today will mean more than $500 million in new wages during the coming year (according to Dr. Dennis Tootelian, who studies business trends and policy at the Center for Small Business at California State University). These wages will result in $1.4 billion in new consumer spending according to the company. They will also add some $54 million in payroll taxes.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/defen...3411640&page=2
Hooray for the Job McNugget? I posted a similar article in the youth unemployment thread. Barbells may be great for weight lifters and people wanting pretty pecs, but a good job recovery it may not make....
Please, this was only news to someone with their head in the sand for the last year. I doubt it will change anything; S&P's decision simply wasn't a new signal to the markets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
S & P, rating teat-sucking cows and crap since 2001. AIG AAA one day and junk the next. Kinda like Iceland, or PIIGS. Those guys, or was that Moody's?
So if they keep rating our debt at AAA, they are bad. If they warn that they have a negative outlook on our debt, they are also bad?
IMO the rating agencies lost all credibility when they didn't downgrade Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, or AIG well ahead of the meltdown. They also couldn't identify outrageous risk for default while financial moguls were taking billions of profits on the housing bubble. When it came to sovereign debt, Iceland was AAA before it was junk? I mean come on, why should anyone believe them now?
Of course it's not really news that the outlook for the USA is negative. What is news though is that S&P is willing to admit that that is the case. I haven't seen them so reluctant to slap lower ratings on other sovereign debt 'just in case'.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
We have a printing press, Federal Reserve and Treasury. Ready to inflate/deflate and fiddle with value of USD, with laser-point accuracy and quantum speed. :rolleyes: What is news is Ben Bernanke agreeing to "press releases" when releasing the fed's Beige Book prognostications. To calm the markets and all that jazz. See folks, nothing to worry about here, kiss your children and go shopping!Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
The rating agencies have lost a lot of credibility. But the question is are they right in this case? Are you really going to say that given the current financial situation of the United States you would say that our financial house is rock solid? Because to me that is what a AAA rating should mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
A broken clock is right twice a day, too. They should have downgraded plenty of "investment grade" things years ago. As well as several nations, US included. But they're paid by the entities they're rating. They'd rate a cow if it came across their desk. :bored:
How do we have a problem because McDonald's is hiring? I think before you can say that, you have to at least be able to point to a shift in the demographics of the people taking the jobs. At the worst, it means that things aren't as bad as they could have been.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
I don't have a problem with McDonald's hiring, or their PR move to hire 50,000 people in one day. I don't really care if they're hiring part-time HS students, full-time HS grads, part-time college students, full-time college grads, or any mixture of retirees and senior citizens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
My gripe is using a large employer like McDonald's to suggest a broad economic "recovery". Oh lookie there, some huge firms are hiring?!
Just because McDonald's or Walmart may be hiring does not translate to any "recovery". It could just as well mean more people buying off dollar menus, buying crap merchandise from Chinese imports, and tons of desperate workers looking for any job. Either way, it still looks like people pinching pennies and feeling desperate.
I don't agree how the article called it a hiring boom, it averages out to only a couple of workers per location, which is expected turnover for a job like this. However one of the other new pieces I read on this said that the average age of a fast food worker has gone from 22 to 29 since 2000.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
Isn't this 50k above the turnover replacement? Article's not really clear, and I don't care enough to look.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
That actually just muddies things, since it means any demographic changes might be independent of our current economics. Did it say anything about the causes? It's traditionally been students and retirees in these job, and more retirees could skew the numbers too.Quote:
However one of the other new pieces I read on this said that the average age of a fast food worker has gone from 22 to 29 since 2000.
I remember there've been a bunch of statistics about people keeping menial jobs and putting off better jobs until later. It's been a trend this last decade, and it hasn't really had that much to do with economics; it's just easier.
Attrition, replacement, who gives a McNugget. Try not avoid words like muddies or muddying, that's not McHelpful. Instead, try using words like sauce, gravy, or ketchup (pronounced Catch Up).Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
What we need now is a catchy McTune! Reminiscent of McDonalds being our Happy Place, such a clean and Snappy Place. Or Coke inspiring the world to sing, with fries on the side!
McCookies to anyone who can name this original clown actor:
As OG mentioned, my fear is the age has increased. But more generally, my statement was related to me thinking we do have a legitimate problem with youth unemployment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
Then again, I also thought this was in the youth unemployment thread before I hit submit.
Students can generally only get the low-end jobs. They don't have the time or education for better ones. If the number of jobs available to them is expanding, isn't that a point against youth unemployment?
Any job is a point against unemployment. I think the concern here is that the applicant pool may be far older than we would hope.
That said, it's unlikely a McDonalds would hire someone much older over someone who is younger.
Depends upon the age of the applicants and the actual manager/owner doing the hiring. Remember, a lot of these are franchises.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Also, after my many years of working with teens...I would be hiring up older workers in a heartbeat. They tend to have less restrictions and social crap to deal with.
I'm thinking more 30somethings vs. 20somethings. Depending on job history, once the economy improves an older person may be out the door.
Uhh, I was hired at my retail job and I'm 26, and paid about $8.75 per hour. They even cited my two art-related degrees as to why I was selected for a position that wasn't listed as being available...and it wasn't management or anything special like that... :bored:
This is another numbers thing, that I have pointed out in the past. Yes, adding 50k McJobs is better than adding no jobs, but its not equivalent to adding or regaining 50k jobs that pay far more than minimum/living wage.