Forgot the chart, lmao
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
The economy has increased greatly, but this isn’t reflected in peoples take home.[/quote]
Fringe?[/quote]
Private sector Employee Sponsored Medical Coverage:
1984
$ per Employee: $0.00
$ per Employee+Family: $8.00/wk
$ Annual Emp+Family: $416.00
$ Family+Deduct: $500.00
$ Annual Salary: $28,149
2010
$ per Employee: $26.75/wk
$ per Employee+Family: $152.00/wk
$ Annual Emp+Family: $7904.00
$ Family+Deduct: $2,500.00
$ Annual Salary: $47793
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Forgot the chart, lmao[/quote]
I acknowledge this reality. It’s how we ended up with the ACA on our way to Universal Medicaid. Not An Endorsement For Either
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
The economy has increased greatly, but this isn’t reflected in peoples take home.[/quote]
Fringe?[/quote]
Private sector Employee Sponsored Medical Coverage:
1984
$ per Employee: $0.00
$ per Employee+Family: $8.00/wk
$ Annual Emp+Family: $416.00
$ Family+Deduct: $500.00
$ Annual Salary: $28,149
2010
$ per Employee: $26.75/wk
$ per Employee+Family: $152.00/wk
$ Annual Emp+Family: $7904.00
$ Family+Deduct: $2,500.00
$ Annual Salary: $47793 [/quote]
This doesn’t answer the question, or if it does, it’s missing the detail that does.
How much of this is piad by the employer, how much is 125 by the employee?
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Forgot the chart, lmao[/quote]
I acknowledge this reality. It’s how we ended up with the ACA on our way to Universal Medicaid. Not An Endorsement For Either[/quote]
Fatties and babyboomers…
That’s the new republican platform: Kill all the babyboomers and send the Fatties to Africa. (Joking, just trying to bring levity to a tough conversation.)
Also to not on the wage gap issues mentioned earlier. American poor people have a very big problem, obesity. Our poor are so damn rich that for the first time in history of man, poor people are more likely to die from too many calories than too few.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
The economy has increased greatly, but this isn’t reflected in peoples take home.[/quote]
Fringe?[/quote]
Private sector Employee Sponsored Medical Coverage:
1984
$ per Employee: $0.00
$ per Employee+Family: $8.00/wk
$ Annual Emp+Family: $416.00
$ Family+Deduct: $500.00
$ Annual Salary: $28,149
2010
$ per Employee: $26.75/wk
$ per Employee+Family: $152.00/wk
$ Annual Emp+Family: $7904.00
$ Family+Deduct: $2,500.00
$ Annual Salary: $47793 [/quote]
This doesn’t answer the question, or if it does, it’s missing the detail that does.
How much of this is paid by the employer, how much is 125 by the employee?[/quote]
See my post above…I’m familiar with increases to medical premiums; I’m on the committee that reviews benefits. What is typical in non-union MFG is the employer pays 75% of the individual employee and 0% of the family cost.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
The economy has increased greatly, but this isn’t reflected in peoples take home.[/quote]
Fringe?[/quote]
So, this is the quickest chart I could find, and I bet it would be more significant if I could find one since 1970.
Let’s assume this person makes $2,500 a pay period in 2000, pay’s 50% of their HI (employer covers the other 50%) at $500 a pay period. With a take home of $2000.
So…
Total HI goes from $1000 to $2140, and the employees contribution from $500 to $1235. That means the employer’s portion goes up to $905 (2140-1235=905).
So even though the wages only go up from $2500 by 36% to $3400, the actual pay the employee receives goes from $3000 (original $2500+500 in insurance) to $4305 for a 43.5% increase in actual wages, while take home stays relatively flat.
This doesn’t include increased vacation time, flex time, PTO, gas cards, company outings, training, etc etc etc. This is solely HI costs.
The world isn’t black and white, and business typically has more shades of gray than that chick pron, with less whips and chains. [/quote]
Good insight on variables to consider, it’s pretty complex.
Exam prep right now, so keeping posts short.
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt wrote:
In any event, the GOP must get a platform and new economic policy ideas - people are listening and expecting something different. I predict they won’t, but that isn’t exactly going out on a limb.
[/quote]
Maybe they need a candidate who actually understands economics and can speak to voters honestly instead of pretending that some new policy can satisfy everyone’s values simultaneously.[/quote]
I’m pretty sure Mitt Romney understands economics. [/quote]
I would prefer someone that wasn’t from the financial sector or a lawyer…yes I realize that narrows the field to almost zero.
[/quote]
I get the dislike for lawyers, but why folks from the financial sector? That’s a pretty broad and deep pool of candidates, imo.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I get the dislike for lawyers, but why folks from the financial sector? That’s a pretty broad and deep pool of candidates, imo. [/quote]
Benevolence and ethics aren’t really high on the “things you need for success” list in our industry.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I get the dislike for lawyers, but why folks from the financial sector? That’s a pretty broad and deep pool of candidates, imo. [/quote]
Benevolence and ethics aren’t really high on the “things you need for success” list in our industry. [/quote]
True I suppose. I think the lack of ethics is a bit overblown (especially post PCAOB), but I can see the reservations one might have.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I get the dislike for lawyers, but why folks from the financial sector? That’s a pretty broad and deep pool of candidates, imo. [/quote]
Benevolence and ethics aren’t really high on the “things you need for success” list in our industry. [/quote]
True I suppose. I think the lack of ethics is a bit overblown (especially post PCAOB), but I can see the reservations one might have. [/quote]
Fair enough on the overblown part. We do tent to police ourselves with rules on top of rules that all started with a set of principles. However that is just the actual reporting end of things.
The further you go up the chain, the less of an accountant you are and the more of a business man you become. And business is well, business. Like politics, it’s chess, and you have to sacrifice a piece here or there to get the win.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I get the dislike for lawyers, but why folks from the financial sector? That’s a pretty broad and deep pool of candidates, imo. [/quote]
Benevolence and ethics aren’t really high on the “things you need for success” list in our industry. [/quote]
True I suppose. I think the lack of ethics is a bit overblown (especially post PCAOB), but I can see the reservations one might have. [/quote]
Fair enough on the overblown part. We do tent to police ourselves with rules on top of rules that all started with a set of principles. However that is just the actual reporting end of things.
The further you go up the chain, the less of an accountant you are and the more of a business man you become. And business is well, business. Like politics, it’s chess, and you have to sacrifice a piece here or there to get the win. [/quote]
Ya, I tend to agree.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I’m not trying to say “let’s cut taxes” is a winning formula politically, and I’m not even clamoring to cut them in general. The ACA and other obamanomics have assraped us enough in that department, and I want people to feel it before we do anything about it.
However, I’m really curious how anyone is going to outline that government “fix” income inequality without totally trampling personal freedom, let alone the risks this idea poses to economic activity in general.
So couple those concerns with the Democrat’s idea of “let’s tax the rich” which solves nothing, because they already pay all the taxes, and you couldn’t tax our way out of this problem, the math just doesn’t work… What is the GOP platform you’re all suggesting? Democrat lite? “Let’s tax the rich, just less than those guys want to”?[/quote]
Well, taxing the rich for the sake of doing it doesn’t really fix inequality, and inequality per se isn’t a problem. But when workers continually enjoy fewer rewards in a system they work harder than ever to contribute to is a problem.
Possible solutions? Any I can think involve some level of government action in the marketplace. Raise the overtime threshold? Provide paid family leave? These policies are conservative in their aims, in terms of the things they purport to protect, but would be seen as “intrusive government” by libertarian types.
Modifying free trade agreements would be a way to deal with some of these issues as well.
[/quote]
You know, I realize that it’s a pipedream, but in response to this post and Sloth’s earlier one you said was great…I agree btw with it, great post…one of the solutions I see is to cut back on regulation. But it has to be the right TYPE of regulation that gets cut back on.
For example, lower the entry barrier to small businesses. Competing with economies of scale is just a losing proposition in many areas where, for example, OSHA and FDA and EPA regs and everything else has made it so ONLY the economies of scale or those with deep loan pockets can start a business.
Now I’m not condemning OSHA in general per se, just bringing up an example of the labryinthine regulations some small businesses have to consider dealing with. Go back 60 years, you can buy benzene and all manor of industrial chemicals as a regular guy. Now you can’t even purchase them.
I’m not suggesting we backtrack all our environmental or hazardous waste laws whatsoever, but where I could once order some chemicals for a magic show, or chemistry experiment, or get lab equipment…now I can’t unless I’m part of a huge university or existing company. Universities even have regulations on getting rid of instruments–not chemicals–so that a regular person can’t just decide to grab one for himself after they’re done using it and upgrade. Why are they regulated?? They’re detecting instruments for crying out loud.
Things like this raise the barrier to entry for certain business ideas so high that they are almost impossible by default for a small time operation. And not just chemistry, I just used that example because it came to mind immediately because I work in it.
Places like Hong Kong have a wicked competitive tech market because their laws and regulations are geared to ensure a relatively low entry barrier into internet service and communications stuff. We have the opposite here. Hong Kong actually mandates existing companies offer start-ups carriage over their infrastructure at reduced prices to ensure they don’t get locked out during the initial phase of beginning a company. We do the opposite (and it just got worse with the retitling of internet, but that’s another thread already)
So anyway, what you say may be true. But also there are ways to lower barriers to small businesses by changing regulations that haven’t been attempted or even approached yet.
Thread derailers!
Who’s the next Republican to jump in the water officially and quit saying he’s just dipping his toe in?
[quote]H factor wrote:
Thread derailers!
Who’s the next Republican to jump in the water officially and quit saying he’s just dipping his toe in? [/quote]
I think Rubio said next week.
I may have him confused with Walker, but one fo the two is polling really well.
There is hope Bush doesn’t get it yet.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I’m not trying to say “let’s cut taxes” is a winning formula politically, and I’m not even clamoring to cut them in general. The ACA and other obamanomics have assraped us enough in that department, and I want people to feel it before we do anything about it.
However, I’m really curious how anyone is going to outline that government “fix” income inequality without totally trampling personal freedom, let alone the risks this idea poses to economic activity in general.
So couple those concerns with the Democrat’s idea of “let’s tax the rich” which solves nothing, because they already pay all the taxes, and you couldn’t tax our way out of this problem, the math just doesn’t work… What is the GOP platform you’re all suggesting? Democrat lite? “Let’s tax the rich, just less than those guys want to”?[/quote]
Well, taxing the rich for the sake of doing it doesn’t really fix inequality, and inequality per se isn’t a problem. But when workers continually enjoy fewer rewards in a system they work harder than ever to contribute to is a problem.
Possible solutions? Any I can think involve some level of government action in the marketplace. Raise the overtime threshold? Provide paid family leave? These policies are conservative in their aims, in terms of the things they purport to protect, but would be seen as “intrusive government” by libertarian types.
Modifying free trade agreements would be a way to deal with some of these issues as well.
[/quote]
You know, I realize that it’s a pipedream, but in response to this post and Sloth’s earlier one you said was great…I agree btw with it, great post…one of the solutions I see is to cut back on regulation. But it has to be the right TYPE of regulation that gets cut back on.
For example, lower the entry barrier to small businesses. Competing with economies of scale is just a losing proposition in many areas where, for example, OSHA and FDA and EPA regs and everything else has made it so ONLY the economies of scale or those with deep loan pockets can start a business.
Now I’m not condemning OSHA in general per se, just bringing up an example of the labryinthine regulations some small businesses have to consider dealing with. Go back 60 years, you can buy benzene and all manor of industrial chemicals as a regular guy. Now you can’t even purchase them.
I’m not suggesting we backtrack all our environmental or hazardous waste laws whatsoever, but where I could once order some chemicals for a magic show, or chemistry experiment, or get lab equipment…now I can’t unless I’m part of a huge university or existing company. Universities even have regulations on getting rid of instruments–not chemicals–so that a regular person can’t just decide to grab one for himself after they’re done using it and upgrade. Why are they regulated?? They’re detecting instruments for crying out loud.
Things like this raise the barrier to entry for certain business ideas so high that they are almost impossible by default for a small time operation. And not just chemistry, I just used that example because it came to mind immediately because I work in it.
Places like Hong Kong have a wicked competitive tech market because their laws and regulations are geared to ensure a relatively low entry barrier into internet service and communications stuff. We have the opposite here. Hong Kong actually mandates existing companies offer start-ups carriage over their infrastructure at reduced prices to ensure they don’t get locked out during the initial phase of beginning a company. We do the opposite (and it just got worse with the retitling of internet, but that’s another thread already)
So anyway, what you say may be true. But also there are ways to lower barriers to small businesses by changing regulations that haven’t been attempted or even approached yet.[/quote]
Completely agreed. And one of the biggest problems in this space is that Big Business actively supports heavier regulation in some (many) cases because it serves as a barrier to entry to smaller enterprises. But, of course, what are the chances the GOP will lead the charge on this when they are so beholden to Big Business (Democrats are too, but to a lesser degree - the GOP is unquestionably the party of Big Business).
I would love to see a huge fight to slash unnecessary regulations. It could be comprehensive, amd could actually be bipartisan. It would take big guts, though.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Completely agreed. And one of the biggest problems in this space is that Big Business actively supports heavier regulation in some (many) cases because it serves as a barrier to entry to smaller enterprises. But, of course, what are the chances the GOP will lead the charge on this when they are so beholden to Big Business (Democrats are too, but to a lesser degree - the GOP is unquestionably the party of Big Business).[/quote]
What irks the living shit out of me with this, is politicians are more than happy to have a progressive taxation system, which I’m okay with too.
However, when it comes to regulation of operations… The progression stops at the smallest of small shops. 10, 20 or 50 employees are the typical thresholds. Now you can get a solid group and service 5-20m top line with 20 people depending on the industry, but you’re still a small player, and about to get shut out of growth due to the above mentioned issues.
[quote]I would love to see a huge fight to slash unnecessary regulations. It could be comprehensive, amd could actually be bipartisan. It would take big guts, though.
[/quote]
It would have to be bipartisan and veto proof, otherwise it is political suicide for anyone that touches it.
[quote]aussie486 wrote:
Not intending to derail this thread but is good to see you back Zeb, all the best.
I will bow out and let the heavy hitters continue.[/quote]
Hey Aussie thanks for the welcome!
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
The ticket idea perplexes me. It matters very little who the candidate picks for a his/her running mate. Did people really vote for Obama/Biden? Did Biden bring in extra votes in 08 and 12? Was the hope and change crowd enamored with what Biden could bring to the table?
The Republicans can win if they run on conservatism. No more Purple candidates. Jeb can’t be the nominee. Give people a reason to go to the polls. How many Republicans stayed home in 08 and 12? A choice between Jeb and a democrat is a lose lose. [/quote]
A choice between a republican or democrat is a lose lose unless your a financial corporate backer.