New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I prefer the sports car version. If it only had a manual transmission. Considering a Porsche has only three usable gears, I would settle for a three speed manual.

The sports car version is even worse IMO. Now get that think off my lawn!

An EV with 3-speed manual, interesting concept.

[Tomm]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

What state did she live in? Did her state set up an exchange or use the federal government's exchange? What insurance did she have before? Overwhelmingly the ACA has been positive and better than the old system where your mother wouldn't have insurance because of a pre-existing condition or the prices would be even higher. Doctors can always choose not to take certain insurance or only take cash; that is their prerogative unless you think we should make a regulation against that? Regardless, I am an advocate for Medicare-For-All.

Florida. Dad has been in the insurance industry for 35 years and brother has been in it for 17. It was done properly and through the healthcare.gov site. Eventually she joined a group plan and dropped her rate to $200 a month. She’s very happy with this plan as covered is significantly better. The system can benefit people, sure but someone else has to pay for it - my family was carry the latter burden. ACA again is trash IMO and will never have my support. We disagree. Moving on.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Because it is propaganda. Get a third party to assess the situation. And what deregulation policy did he enact specifically to lower drug prices? Prices of internet are going down???

https://khn.org/news/president-trump...ow-are-skimpy/

https://arstechnica.com/information-...o-hidden-fees/

Propaganda with evidence and history diagrams? okay. Sure. You clearly didnt read it.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Or responding to your link

Then what made you go off on multiple different tangents?

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Read the bold above. "...each has a virtual monopoly." You say the apartment complex is part of the problem, but maybe they are just trying to make a buck in a free market system and getting around regulations through loopholes:

https://broadbandnow.com/report/apar...ernet-hostage/

Read the first line of the article... Takes two to tango bro. I’d move, free market ftw.

If you live in an apartment building, the landlord might be profiting from your plight.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

He can talk, but what is happening behind the scenes? Well, Texas is already home to one of Tesla's offices and was going to be the location for the Cybertruck plant. As this article points out, Musk has gone after tax-payer incentives to bring his business to their area. Maybe all his ranting and raving about California is so states will know what he wants, which is low taxes and lots of incentives, yet, maybe he is pitting state against state when he plans all along to go to Texas because the Texas truck market is number one and California is number two.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/20/elon...1-billion.html

This is very tinfoil hat of you. He also has Space X there too soooo. I’m sure there was a multitude of reasons but I’m not going to assume anything, I’d rather listen to what has been said not make assumptions.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

You're creating a false dichotomy. It doesn't have to be an either/or situation. Walmart can pay its workers a fair wage. If Walmart didn't exist then the US would have more jobs, there would be more better paying jobs too, so even if costs were higher for goods, there would be an income or a higher income.

Interestingly, the state with the most hunger (18.7% of households) and the most obesity (40.8%) is Mississippi. With 86 Walmarts, they sit in the middle and are far from having the most Walmarts, which is Texas at 603, but when we compare based on population, if Mississippi had the population of Texas then they might also have 837 Walmarts, proportionally. You can draw your own conclusions from that.

I’m providing a counter point that allows you to decide what you think the balance should be. It’s not a false dichotomy, it’s food for though that’s highlighting the positive impacts of cheap goods. It’s been proven that some people don’t want to be off government support programs.

There are far too many variables to correlate those statistics. My point is to show how cheap food is necessary to feed the less fortunate.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Bro, they have more employees on government aid than anyone. McDonalds even openly helps its employees get on food stamps. Your tax dollars are subsidizing their profit margins because they won't pay their employees enough, yet they are racking in billions. What don't you get?

https://money.cnn.com/2013/10/23/new...-line-workers/

And they probably will never leave the programs because people like free money.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Tomm

Florida. Dad has been in the insurance industry for 35 years and brother has been in it for 17. It was done properly. Eventually she joint a group plan and dropped her rate to $200 a month. She’s very happy with this plan as covered is significantly better. The system can benefit people, sure but someone else has to pay for it - my family was carry the latter burden. ACA again is trash IMO and will never have my support. We disagree. Moving on.

Someone else was already paying for it before. When there is no mandate people just don't get insurance and then use the emergency room, and the bill is passed on to people with private insurance. The only system that makes sense is a medicare-for-all system where everyone has to contribute something and everyone is in the same group, so prices can be negotiated lower. What is your alternative? Should we deregulate healthcare and get rid of medicare? Should we allow hospitals to refuse care and insurance providers to deny plans to anyone they want? Where would you like to see more deregulation?

Originally Posted by Tomm

Propaganda with evidence and history diagrams? okay. Sure. You clearly didnt read it.

I read it and gave clear counter arguments. I even linked an article saying they are raising their rates! What more can I do? I think you just want to have your head in the sand.

Originally Posted by Tomm

Then what made you go off on multiple different tangents?

Did you even read the article I was responding to or just the headline because every sentence of my response to the article was a response to the article and not a tangent.

Originally Posted by Tomm

Read the first line of the article... Takes two to tango bro. I’d move, free market ftw.

Aww, just as I suspected. What you missed in my articles is that this isn't isolated to any one area. In fact, they said "in large portions of the US", and your suggestion to just move is ridiculous. It doesn't change the fact that an area can have a local monopoly, which should be illegal, but it isn't. I wonder why that is?

Originally Posted by Tomm

This is very tinfoil hat of you. He also has Space X there too soooo. I’m sure there was a multitude of reasons but I’m not going to assume anything, I’d rather listen to what has been said not make assumptions.

It isn't tinfoil hat because it isn't a conspiracy. Like the article says, he has a track record of doing just that like he did with a solar panel plant in New York. It is referred to as a pattern of behavior, which is saying one thing on social media, but doing the opposite. The man has literally been fined because his social media comments directly and intentionally manipulated the stock price because he was upset at short sellers. Like Newson said, he isn't concerned about Tesla threatening to leave. California is the largest car market in the US, and proportionally a huge market for EVs in the world, but especially the US. There are ramifications to leaving California, and there are benefits to setting up another plant in the middle of the US in the second largest market and largest truck market besides taxes, regulations and cheaper labor.

Originally Posted by Tomm

I’m providing a counter point that allows you to decide what you think the balance should be. It’s not a false dichotomy, it’s food for though that’s highlighting the positive impacts of cheap goods. It’s been proven that some people don’t want to be off government support programs. There are far too many variables to correlate those statistics. My point is to show how cheap food is necessary to feed the less fortunate. And they probably will never leave the programs because people like free money.

No, if you look up a false dichotomy then that literally is what you were proposing, as if it is either Walmart exists, and we have cheap goods, but shitty wages and less small businesses, or Walmart doesn't exist and consumers have to pay more for goods. Wrong! That is a false dichotomy, and it isn't an either/or situation.

"Proven that some people don't want to be off government support programs." I'm sure some people don't. And? That really doesn't say much. Are you saying many people, the majority of people, a large chunk of people? "People like free money". And you don't like free money? What type of statement is that? Stating the obvious, but you are connecting it with programs, so you are saying people like poverty if it means some free money. I'm sure some would say yes, but again, are you saying this is prevalent? Can you back that up with some statistics, but that statement sounds like a conservative talking point more than anything based in fact. Care to read some facts on who is actually getting the bulk of government aid? I'll give you a sneak peak because I doubt you will read it: it is people who paid into the programs who are collecting back their own money like senior citizens and disabled people:

https://www.americanprogress.org/iss...blic-benefits/

Again, the US wouldn't need to spend money on food stamps if Walmart paid people more, so those employees didn't need or didn't qualify for food stamps. Does this look like Walmart employees want to have low wages and stay on food stamps? Walmart has a history of subverting unionization, but we know why don't we?

Walmart Workers Picket 1,600 Stores Demanding Higher Wages And Full-Time Work

https://www.ibtimes.com/walmart-work...e-work-1730599

https://populardemocracy.org/news/ho...s-not-unionize

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by nextcar

I bet you didn't like Eve from the movie Wall-E either...

I thought Eve was cute, her on-screen robot double was a little creepy though...

[Irace86.2.0]

Looks like the price per kWh has gone down.

https://electrek.co/2020/12/16/elect...h-price-point/

“For the first time, battery pack prices of less than $100/kWh have been reported. These were for batteries in e-buses in China. While these were the lowest reported price, the volume-weighted average price for e-buses in China was slightly higher, $105/kWh.”

“Lithium-ion battery pack prices, which were above $1,100 per kilowatt-hour in 2010, have fallen 89% in real terms to $137/kWh in 2020. By 2023, average prices will be close to $100/kWh, according to the latest forecast from research company BloombergNEF (BNEF).”

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I prefer the sports car version. If it only had a manual transmission. Considering a Porsche has only three usable gears, I would settle for a three speed manual.

With column-mount shifter

Seriously tho I love the sports car version...

[Tomm]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Someone else was already paying for it before. When there is no mandate people just don't get insurance and then use the emergency room, and the bill is passed on to people with private insurance. The only system that makes sense is a medicare-for-all system where everyone has to contribute something and everyone is in the same group, so prices can be negotiated lower. What is your alternative? Should we deregulate healthcare and get rid of medicare? Should we allow hospitals to refuse care and insurance providers to deny plans to anyone they want? Where would you like to see more deregulation?

This is going down a rabbit hole and could be argued to no end. My answer is the same, my body my choice.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I read it and gave clear counter arguments. I even linked an article saying they are raising their rates! What more can I do? I think you just want to have your head in the sand.

Did you even read the article I was responding to or just the headline because every sentence of my response to the article was a response to the article and not a tangent.

Well my monthly rate dropped and my down/upload rate increased. So it would appear my head is right where it needs to be. I don't invest a lot into what you're arguing. Additionally, if you look at the amount of inconsistencies in service rates state to state you can't develop a clear trend. So again, I'm not convinced.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Aww, just as I suspected. What you missed in my articles is that this isn't isolated to any one area. In fact, they said "in large portions of the US", and your suggestion to just move is ridiculous. It doesn't change the fact that an area can have a local monopoly, which should be illegal, but it isn't. I wonder why that is?

Don't be childish. If you're going to debate on the internet put on your adult pants and try to have a civilized conversation. I don't care how much anger or sass you're layin down in each post, it doesn't help your argument.

How is it ridiculous? Don't put apartment buildings on blast and continue to give them business. Do something about it. That's your CHOICE. The last apt building I rented from tried to raise my rates $270/month to renew. Bye. Its because your apartment building made an agreement with them, by choice.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

It isn't tinfoil hat because it isn't a conspiracy. Like the article says, he has a track record of doing just that like he did with a solar panel plant in New York. It is referred to as a pattern of behavior, which is saying one thing on social media, but doing the opposite. The man has literally been fined because his social media comments directly and intentionally manipulated the stock price because he was upset at short sellers. Like Newson said, he isn't concerned about Tesla threatening to leave. California is the largest car market in the US, and proportionally a huge market for EVs in the world, but especially the US. There are ramifications to leaving California, and there are benefits to setting up another plant in the middle of the US in the second largest market and largest truck market besides taxes, regulations and cheaper labor.

The basis of your argument is because of what he did with a plant in New York? That's not a pattern of behavior (nice use of a term that has negative connotation) its a completely different scenario that involved a joint venture. You can't compare the two.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

No, if you look up a false dichotomy then that literally is what you were proposing, as if it is either Walmart exists, and we have cheap goods, but shitty wages and less small businesses, or Walmart doesn't exist and consumers have to pay more for goods. Wrong! That is a false dichotomy, and it isn't an either/or situation.

I know what a false dichotomy is but if you're trying to highlight my use of the word "which" in that specific question then you are missing the point of my argument which I tried to explain to you but seem hung up, so whats you're goal with this comment?

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

"Proven that some people don't want to be off government support programs." I'm sure some people don't. And? That really doesn't say much. Are you saying many people, the majority of people, a large chunk of people? "People like free money". And you don't like free money? What type of statement is that? Stating the obvious, but you are connecting it with programs, so you are saying people like poverty if it means some free money. I'm sure some would say yes, but again, are you saying this is prevalent? Can you back that up with some statistics, but that statement sounds like a conservative talking point more than anything based in fact. Care to read some facts on who is actually getting the bulk of government aid? I'll give you a sneak peak because I doubt you will read it: it is people who paid into the programs who are collecting back their own money like senior citizens and disabled people:

https://www.americanprogress.org/iss...blic-benefits/

The importance of that statement is that even if it is a small portion of those people don't want to leave those government programs then then basis of your argument is flawed. You're asking for empirical data for something that is subjective. Aside from that, lets consider the alternative - lets not allow those people work for the rates they agreed (with their employers) to work for, pay them more and they are in turn disqualified for government social programs without having a choice. Choice. You're removing the option with that exact regulation.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Again, the US wouldn't need to spend money on food stamps if Walmart paid people more, so those employees didn't need or didn't qualify for food stamps. Does this look like Walmart employees want to have low wages and stay on food stamps? Walmart has a history of subverting unionization, but we know why don't we?

Walmart Workers Picket 1,600 Stores Demanding Higher Wages And Full-Time Work

https://www.ibtimes.com/walmart-work...e-work-1730599

https://populardemocracy.org/news/ho...s-not-unionize

Did you just cite populardemocracy regarding the pro union argument and you're criticizing me for referencing the WH. Interesting. If you want to discuss unions we can but this is going to yet again shift the focus.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Tomm

This is going down a rabbit hole and could be argued to no end. My answer is the same, my body my choice.

What does that even mean? If people go to an ER and don't pay then someone else is paying for it. That is private insurance. The buck is passed on.

Well my monthly rate dropped and my down/upload rate increased. So it would appear my head is right where it needs to be. I don't invest a lot into what you're arguing. Additionally, if you look at the amount of inconsistencies in service rates state to state you can't develop a clear trend. So again, I'm not convinced.

Anecdotal versus data on national trends. Yes, I see where your head is.

Don't be childish. If you're going to debate on the internet put on your adult pants and try to have a civilized conversation. I don't care how much anger or sass you're layin down in each post, it doesn't help your argument.

How is it ridiculous? Don't put apartment buildings on blast and continue to give them business. Do something about it. That's your CHOICE. The last apt building I rented from tried to raise my rates $270/month to renew. Bye. Its because your apartment building made an agreement with them, by choice.

Sonoma County has an extremely tight housing market. There isn't a whole lot of options. This situation along with monopolies and oligopolies leads to predatory behavior. Like myself, people grew up here, have family here, have careers here, so a little regulations to prevent predatory behavior is in the public's interest.

https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/PRMD/Reg.../Housing-Need/

The basis of your argument is because of what he did with a plant in New York? That's not a pattern of behavior (nice use of a term that has negative connotation) its a completely different scenario that involved a joint venture. You can't compare the two.

We will see. He may move. His business likely won't.

I know what a false dichotomy is but if you're trying to highlight my use of the word "which" in that specific question then you are missing the point of my argument which I tried to explain to you but seem hung up, so whats you're goal with this comment?

The point is Walmart should pay its workers a fair wage that doesn't leave the American tax payer footing the bill and subsidizing their workers. The fact is they won't do that. The fact is they have lobbied to keep the minimum wage lower, and the only reason they said they will no longer lobby against the minimum wage is because of social pressure, and that pressure is causing their rivals to raise their minimum wage to $15, but that is the thing, the Waltons still need to maximize their billions. They could have done the right thing a long time ago, but without any regulations or external pressure, they will just keep gouging their employees and the American tax payer.

The importance of that statement is that even if it is a small portion of those people don't want to leave those government programs then then basis of your argument is flawed. You're asking for empirical data for something that is subjective. Aside from that, lets consider the alternative - lets not allow those people work for the rates they agreed (with their employers) to work for, pay them more and they are in turn disqualified for government social programs without having a choice. Choice. You're removing the option with that exact regulation.

I want a survey or something tangible that backs up your statement when you say it has been proven that people don't want to get off government support programs. You say it has been proven, so that is an objective statement. If you say people prefer to give the government a portion of their salary to fund future healthcare like medicare or fund a future retirement plan like social security, then yes, the programs are very favorable for senior citizens.

Yes, I would be removing the option for people to stay on food stamps by making sure employers are paying them enough to have enough money to not need food stamps.

Did you just cite populardemocracy regarding the pro union argument and you're criticizing me for referencing the WH. Interesting. If you want to discuss unions we can but this is going to yet again shift the focus.

Yeah, we can talk unions. The fall of unions was part of the fall of the middle class, the deepening of the income inequality in the country and is one of the biggest problems in this country. CEOs like Elon Musk and large corporations like Walmart have subverted efforts for employees to practice their legal rights to form a union.

https://www.epi.org/blog/weakened-la...ic-inequality/

https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/...violation-nlrb

[Tomm]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

What does that even mean? If people go to an ER and don't pay then someone else is paying for it. That is private insurance. The buck is passed on.

That is not private insurance.

You were arguing for universal healthcare and asked me for alternatives (a rabbit hole of a conversation in itself) then turned into the average US citizen paying the bill which down the line you can make the connection but its a stretch because insurance companies only account for a small percentage of that, while the federal, state and local governments account for a the vast majority of those unpaid (uninsured) bills. This can be debated on who and how it is funded and I didn't feel the need to dig into because again, we will end up going down a rabbit hole.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Anecdotal versus data on national trends. Yes, I see where your head is.

Lol more condescension... I posted the stats and you didn't like the WH as the source and you went down a path of blame against the POTUS claims. If you haven't looked at the cost of internet/Mbps you're not giving me information I care to read. For anyone paying attention the Mb is cheaper than its ever been.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Sonoma County has an extremely tight housing market. There isn't a whole lot of options. This situation along with monopolies and oligopolies leads to predatory behavior. Like myself, people grew up here, have family here, have careers here, so a little regulations to prevent predatory behavior is in the public's interest.

That's your choice. I just find it ironic that you're complaining about the fire being hot while you're pouring fuel on it. I'm more of a, if I don't like the company's tactics I don't give them my business, kind of guy.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

The point is Walmart should pay its workers a fair wage that doesn't leave the American tax payer footing the bill and subsidizing their workers. The fact is they won't do that. The fact is they have lobbied to keep the minimum wage lower, and the only reason they said they will no longer lobby against the minimum wage is because of social pressure, and that pressure is causing their rivals to raise their minimum wage to $15, but that is the thing, the Waltons still need to maximize their billions. They could have done the right thing a long time ago, but without any regulations or external pressure, they will just keep gouging their employees and the American tax payer.

And I'm saying the average employee at walmart is earning over $13/hr which is above the well established minimum cost of living.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I want a survey or something tangible that backs up your statement when you say it has been proven that people don't want to get off government support programs. You say it has been proven, so that is an objective statement. If you say people prefer to give the government a portion of their salary to fund future healthcare like medicare or fund a future retirement plan like social security, then yes, the programs are very favorable for senior citizens.

Yes, I would be removing the option for people to stay on food stamps by making sure employers are paying them enough to have enough money to not need food stamps.

There have been many studies that have shown, after economic recessions (booming SNAP enrollments) people remain on it until they are no longer qualified.

No what I'm saying is, if you raise the minimum wage mandate you're not giving the people the option to make a decision to remain on those programs or not.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Yeah, we can talk unions. The fall of unions was part of the fall of the middle class, the deepening of the income inequality in the country and is one of the biggest problems in this country. CEOs like Elon Musk and large corporations like Walmart have subverted efforts for employees to practice their legal rights to form a union.

https://www.epi.org/blog/weakened-la...ic-inequality/

https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/...violation-nlrb

I'm going to let you know, I won't be reading Vox. EPI has good stuff though. You understand that you can't just drive up the cost of labor without considering the effects, right? So lets consider the last minimum wage increase from $6.55 to $7.25 (a $0.70 increase) is estimated to have cost 300,000 jobs. (from this book https://www.amazon.com/Economics-Pub.../dp/0134018974 )

It is well know that minimum wage increases impact employment: https://www.forbes.com/sites/adammil...h=397247ed1e7d

On top of that it forces employers to hire, more highly qualified people over entry level. Which counteracts the main goal. (again from previous textbook)

And which companies do you think would be more impacted by these increases? Starbucks or the local coffee shop? Small businesses would take the brunt of these regulations. (again from previous textbook) The larger companies would just automate more (Amazon Go for example).

So I'd ask what is your definition of income inequalities? Because its easy to figure out what drives up the cost of an employee - experience and skill, location, credentials, job description and responsibilities, industry or employer, and success and performance. College experience is one of the biggest factors in wage gaps. Do you think these factors should not matter? Or do you think everyone's pay should move up proportionally?

I think any objective mind can find the pros and cons of unions. It comes down to which of those elements do you hold more important? Are you suggesting unionization just because of the wage increase benefits or something else? If you are then you need to understand that unions are typically in specialized career fields like manufacturing, utilities, construction, and such. Specialized meaning, higher pay. The retail career field couldn't afford union representation. It's unrealistic but an important factor to consider. I think unionization for Walmart would be significantly different than that of Tesla. As for Tesla doing illegal stuff, I won't advocate for them.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Tomm

You were arguing for universal healthcare and asked me for alternatives (a rabbit hole of a conversation in itself)

It's simple: Everybody making money pays in, everybody in the country is covered. Even right-wing sponsored studies have shown this to be cost-effective. I wouldn't even mind paying *more* to ensure that those less fortunate than myself have healthcare. And also that if anything happens to me such that I lose my job that *I* still have healthcare. M4A is the way to go.

And I'm saying the average employee at walmart is earning over $13/hr which is above the well established minimum cost of living.

Yeah, and if you have 10 employees and pay 9 of them $1 and 1 of them $100, the *average* pay is $10/hr. The *minimum wage* should be a living wage, everywhere in the country.

There have been many studies that have shown, after economic recessions (booming SNAP enrollments) people remain on it until they are no longer qualified.

As long as they qualify I'm all for giving them the benefits. But making sure everyone who works is paid a living wage would ensure that NO working people require benefits as they would be adequately paid by their employers.

You understand that you can't just drive up the cost of labor without considering the effects, right? So lets consider the last minimum wage increase from $6.55 to $7.25 (a $0.70 increase) is estimated to have cost 300,000 jobs. (from this book https://www.amazon.com/Economics-Pub.../dp/0134018974 )

Long/short, I don't believe this "estimate" is arrived at legitimately...
Here's a study for you: Why Does the Minimum Wage Have
No Discernible Effect on Employment?
The weight of that evidence points to little or no employment
response to modest increases in the minimum wage.
https://cepr.net/documents/publicati...ge-2013-02.pdf

IF prices go up a bit and that DOES result in more unemployment, IMO better to have good unemployment benefits and let people use their time and energies to get training or education to find better-paying jobs than to continue to allow exploitation and a race-to-the-bottom in terms of lower wages.

[Tomm]

Originally Posted by ZDan

It's simple: Everybody making money pays in, everybody in the country is covered. Even right-wing sponsored studies have shown this to be cost-effective. I wouldn't even mind paying *more* to ensure that those less fortunate than myself have healthcare. And also that if anything happens to me such that I lose my job that *I* still have healthcare. M4A is the way to go.

Cost effective doesn't make it better. Do you buy your Bride seats from Taiwan or from Japan? My point was, that some people (my mother included) were paying up to 400% more premium and absurd increases in deductibles for a fraction of the coverage. How is that fair? I didn't even break into the pros and cons because as I said, it's a whoooole different conversation.

Originally Posted by ZDan

Yeah, and if you have 10 employees and pay 9 of them $1 and 1 of them $100, the *average* pay is $10/hr. The *minimum wage* should be a living wage, everywhere in the country.

Okay, now do it for 2.2 million people.

Originally Posted by ZDan

As long as they qualify I'm all for giving them the benefits. But making sure everyone who works is paid a living wage would ensure that NO working people require benefits as they would be adequately paid by their employers.

That's not what I'm saying, I'm saying that people are enrolling into the program as a need and then maintaining membership beyond necessity as a want. I don't care why, I think its human nature - if I can, why not.

Originally Posted by ZDan

Long/short, I don't believe this "estimate" is arrived at legitimately...
Here's a study for you: Why Does the Minimum Wage Have
No Discernible Effect on Employment?
The weight of that evidence points to little or no employment
response to modest increases in the minimum wage.
https://cepr.net/documents/publicati...ge-2013-02.pdf

IF prices go up a bit and that DOES result in more unemployment, IMO better to have good unemployment benefits and let people use their time and energies to get training or education to find better-paying jobs than to continue to allow exploitation and a race-to-the-bottom in terms of lower wages.

Check more sources... https://www.nber.org/system/files/wo...663/w12663.pdf

The long term effects of raising minimum wage have more negative impacts on employment that positive. This paper compiled many studies and developed their conclusion based on the culmination of them.

. . . among the papers we view as providing the most credible evidence, almost all point to negative employment
effects, both for the United States as well as for many other countries.

[Dadhawk]

We're a long way from ICE bans at this point, but what the heck.

Originally Posted by ZDan

...M4A is the way to go.

I'm all for universal healthcare but having seen the finances behind hospitals with a large Medicare payer mix I can tell you the healthcare system will not survive on a strict M4A plan. The nonprofit hospital I work for is one of the few that manages to run in the black, but it's not because of Medicare reimbursements. That is strictly a red proposition with commercial and self-pay moving it slightly into the black area each year.

Originally Posted by ZDan

Yeah, and if you have 10 employees and pay 9 of them $1 and 1 of them $100, the *average* pay is $10/hr. The *minimum wage* should be a living wage, everywhere in the country.
...
Long/short, I don't believe this "estimate" is arrived at legitimately...
Here's a study for you: [I] Why Does the Minimum Wage Have
No Discernible Effect on Employment?

I can only speak from my family's personal experience, but I have 3 sons that have worked low end jobs in high school at grocers and other retail jobs. At no point were they paid minimum wage even as 16 year olds. In fact, the Bureau of Labor Statistics says that in 2017 less than 2.3% of all hourly workers made minimum wage or less.

My sons all made, starting out, a minimum of $10 per hour (38% higher than minimum wage) as far back as 12 years ago.

I've also not seen anything that convinces me that $31,200 a year ($15x2080) is a "living wage". Maybe if you're single, and you don't live in NYC or Los Angeles.

According to MIT, the living wage in the county where I live in Georgia (which is a relatively affluent county) is $13.66 but that changes to $35.79 ($74,443) if you have 3 kids and a single parent. So, then, does the Federal minimum wage need to float based on your family circumstances?

Also, their estimate for LA County in California is $14.83 for a single person. Based on what I know about price differences in Georgia and CA I find it hard to believe that $46.80 difference per week ($2,434 per year) is enough to give you the same lifestyle between the two areas.

I don't know what the real "answer" is, but I don't think it's one that can be legislated.

[Tomm]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

I don't know what the real "answer" is, but I don't think it's one that can be legislated.

This.

[AnalogMan]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

We're a long way from ICE bans at this point, but what the heck.

I don't know what the real "answer" is, but I don't think it's one that can be legislated.

There are many potential 'solutions'. We can try to learn from the examples of the 192 other countries on Earth and see what works and what doesn't. If you look at cost and quality as the most important factors in assessing healthcare (seems reasonable, how good is it and how much does it cost?), so many measures show that the U.S. has, by far, the most expensive healthcare in the world, but far from the best. In cost we're always #1 by a wide margin, but in quality, depending in the metrics, we're usually somewhere between 20th and 40th. The World Population Review rates us 37, down there with Cuba and Slovenia -

https://worldpopulationreview.com/co...e-in-the-world

For most countries around the world, and certainly for all the countries in the top 20, healthcare is a legislated solution. It was a conscious decision by the elected leaders that healthcare is a right that should be given to all people, not just to those who can afford it. The U.S. is the only major country on Earth that takes the position that healthcare is not a right for all its people.

It's not that top-quality healthcare isn't available in the U.S. It certainly is. This country has some of the best physicians, some of the best facilities, and some of the best treatments available anywhere on Earth. It's just that they're far from universally available to everyone. If you want the best, it's only available to those who can afford to pay for it. Even though the ACA reduced the number of people without health coverage by about 20 million, there are still almost 30 million people today who don't have any health insurance because they can't afford it (or don't have jobs that provide it). That brings the average quality of healthcare in this country way down.

France often is considered to have the highest quality healthcare in the world (compared to our 37th). Yet the cost of healthcare in France is less than half of what it is in the U.S. Likewise Italy, with the second best care has a cost about 1/3 that of the U.S.

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/...untries___2018

All those countries with better quality healthcare than we have legislated it into being. They took profit out of the picture and instead used the money for salaries for physicians and nurses, hospital equipment and staff, and medicines.

Our costs are so high because of how much must go to pay for the profits of all the for-profit companies involved in delivering our healthcare. Every dollar that goes to corporate profits is a dollar that doesn't go for physicians, nurses, or anything else that actually provides healthcare to people.

For any public company in the U.S. (and most of the insurance and other companies involved in healthcare are publicly held), it has been codified into law that the highest priority of any corporation is to maximize shareholder value. Always. At all times. Above any and all other obligations or activities. That means squeezing every last possible penny possible in profits (plus 30%), and doing anything and everything to pump (hype) up the stock price right now, immediately, today, short term.

Any CEO that dares incur the wrath of hedge funds and other institutional shareholders by not charging usurious prices for drugs, by not paying employees the bare minimum you can get away with, by not borrowing money and leveraging the company to the hilt, or by being so foolish as to actually try to invest in R&D for new drugs, invariably gets quickly and viciously sued and then has to defend himself before a judge and rapacious plaintiff's attorneys asking 'why didn't you do this to increase profits and share price?'. Ask me how I know.

The goals are mutually exclusive: as a society, is our priority to maximize corporate profits, or to maximize the quality of healthcare and how many people have it?

Pick one.