Maybe you missed the part where he has a 200 person wait list, and the part where his employees aren’t living off of the wage he pays them (rather, they live off of retirement income).

Way to unfairly disparage an entire group of people.

I’m a former journalist and have worked with many reporters over the years who are passionate about their work, dedicated to getting stories correct, understand what they cover and possess fine writing ability. They were not “peons,” and they certainly can write far better than you.

I don’t understand why the type of language you use in your post is tolerated by the guy who runs this blog. If you can’t express yourself without making sweeping generalizations and using four-letter words, why don’t you go back to playing in the sandbox?

For once you are wrong. I must point this out. Very politely.

The basis of this fine journalistic expose is A JOURNALIST SUPERVISOR (since Gannett just fired all of the senior “reporters” and “management” at the AZ Repugnant because their anemic revenue stream is going to hell faster than Eliot Spitzer’s presidential nomination) , WHO HAS AN INHERENTLY SHITTY JOB AND WHO HAS ZERO CLUE ABOUT HOW SHIT WORKS, BECAUSE THEY”RE FUCKING CLUELESS JOURNALISTS, not (only) because they’re lazy, stupid, lethargic, poor writers, and otherwise unobservant peons, but mostly because they are inherently dumb, much like the fire-hose-guy at the Hindenburg.

Signed,

The guy who writes better than journalists. As a hobby.

Imagine all adults are married, and that 50% of jobs have health insurance that pay more than 34K, while the other half don’t have health insurance but they pay more than 34K per year and also pay enough on top of that to buy your own health insurance.

Now imagine that all marriages have one partner with a job with health insurance, and the other partner without. In other words, everyone is covered either from their own job or via their spouse’s job. If 34K is a reasonable definition of a good job, then a reasonable person would say that 100% of adults have good jobs, but the author would say that only 50% have good jobs.

The author is an idiot.

Additionally the author doesn’t make allowance for job salary minus the cost of private health being greater than 34K. Not only would this make it the equivalent of a “good job”, but it is arguably better because the health insurance is portable, i.e. not tied to staying employed with a company providing health insurance.

If by ‘Peoria’, you meant Peoria, Ill., I can assure you $34K would suck there, too – though maybe not quite as much as it would in Phoenix. It was my hometown and my brother and sister live there still. If you meant Peoria, Ariz., well, that’s a suburb of Phoenix.

Getting back on topic, Warren makes a great point about requiring benefits as part of a ‘good’ job. When my small software contracting biz had 11 people working in it back in the 90s, I couldn’t get a group plan started to save my life. I wanted one but no one else because they were all covered by other plans (their spouses’, generally). None of those people was making less than $50K at the time and most were higher. Pretty good jobs by most standards.

This study unintentionally points out the value of detaching health insurance from work. Make it portable, state-subsidized and privately administered. MSAs all the way!