Comments on: Bending Over Backwards to Try to Show Wage Stagnation http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2008/10/bending-over-ba.html Dispatches from a Small Business Sun, 12 Feb 2012 09:39:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: drogen http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2008/10/bending-over-ba.html/comment-page-1#comment-14169 drogen Sat, 08 Nov 2008 10:13:56 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2008/10/bending-over-ba.html#comment-14169 <p>I read a census statistic that something ridiculous like 90% of households below the poverty line in the US have color TVs and DVD players.</p> I read a census statistic that something ridiculous like 90% of households below the poverty line in the US have color TVs and DVD players.

]]> By: darwin http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2008/10/bending-over-ba.html/comment-page-1#comment-14168 darwin Wed, 29 Oct 2008 16:42:15 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2008/10/bending-over-ba.html#comment-14168 <p><i>No matter what the politicians claim, the only way to reduce health care costs is to reduce fixed cost. That means fewer hospital beds, less staff, less technology, and less research and development. There is no other way to cut costs.</i></p> <p>"Less" technology would result in cost cutting in the American industry which has least experienced the efficiency gains of the IT revolution? I must be misunderstanding how productivity works..</p> <p>There are almost unbelievable low hanging fruit in the health care IT field. If, for example, medical results were exchanged, printed, distributed and stored in a better format, the physical size of this data could be reduced by 75%. Why hasn't it been done? </p> <p>Highly regulated, hence protected market. No need to be competitive. Big surprise we end up with super low productivity.</p> <p>=darwin<br /> </p> No matter what the politicians claim, the only way to reduce health care costs is to reduce fixed cost. That means fewer hospital beds, less staff, less technology, and less research and development. There is no other way to cut costs.

“Less” technology would result in cost cutting in the American industry which has least experienced the efficiency gains of the IT revolution? I must be misunderstanding how productivity works..

There are almost unbelievable low hanging fruit in the health care IT field. If, for example, medical results were exchanged, printed, distributed and stored in a better format, the physical size of this data could be reduced by 75%. Why hasn’t it been done?

Highly regulated, hence protected market. No need to be competitive. Big surprise we end up with super low productivity.

=darwin

]]> By: WK http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2008/10/bending-over-ba.html/comment-page-1#comment-14167 WK Wed, 22 Oct 2008 01:20:41 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2008/10/bending-over-ba.html#comment-14167 <p>I assume Mark Perry's chart is only showing income tax, not the payroll tax. What would it look like with the payroll tax included, especially since those at the top would not pay the payroll tax on income above $97,000?</p> I assume Mark Perry’s chart is only showing income tax, not the payroll tax. What would it look like with the payroll tax included, especially since those at the top would not pay the payroll tax on income above $97,000?

]]> By: Tim Fowler http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2008/10/bending-over-ba.html/comment-page-1#comment-14166 Tim Fowler Tue, 21 Oct 2008 21:39:04 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2008/10/bending-over-ba.html#comment-14166 <p> Will - In the "messiness of the real world" those with below average incomes, spend more and have more than they used to. As for what CEO income counts, the post wasn't a comparison of CEO income to the income of others. The charts are 1 - wages, total compensation, and corporate profits as a percentage of GDP, 2 - median household income and average household size, 3 - people at or below minimum wage by age, 4 - percentage of total income tax revenue received from the those with the top 1% of income and those with the bottom 95%.</p> Will – In the “messiness of the real world” those with below average incomes, spend more and have more than they used to. As for what CEO income counts, the post wasn’t a comparison of CEO income to the income of others. The charts are 1 – wages, total compensation, and corporate profits as a percentage of GDP, 2 – median household income and average household size, 3 – people at or below minimum wage by age, 4 – percentage of total income tax revenue received from the those with the top 1% of income and those with the bottom 95%.

]]> By: Will http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2008/10/bending-over-ba.html/comment-page-1#comment-14165 Will Mon, 20 Oct 2008 23:15:39 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2008/10/bending-over-ba.html#comment-14165 <p>One problem I see is we have no sense of the true cost of living. It may well be that if you take into account wages and other compensation like health care, that workers are keeping pace with their employers. but is it a decent living wage? Am I to assume that the working class who are the focus of both Presidential campaigns really aren't hurting and don't care about their economic state. This makes no sense to me. When the media interviews these people they express frustration about making ends meet, staying ahead and participating in the American dream. But I'm glad to see that our statistical charts make these complaints irrelevant. </p> <p>And why is there an increasing discrepancy between CEO pay and the average worker? Does the consideration of CEO pay take into account the "other benefits" (health and otherwise) that owners of capital receive as compensation? Or do we discount other types of compensation when speaking of CEO's. I have no confidence that there would be an "apples to apples" comparison even if other compensation were included. After all, if you make enough money you may not need to worry about health care benefits or things of that sort since you have sufficient funds to buy a good policy or pay out of pocket. I don't know how you would make this comparable, and it is a value judgement to assume that workers and unions "choose health care benefits" over other compensation. What else might they do if they don't see a chance for a good raise and if they are seeing increasing costs for health care? </p> <p>It's a nice academic argument, but it seems to ignore the messiness of real world compensation and negotiating influence. I'm all for good charts, but there is a self-serving aspect to this display of data. After all, the NYT and those who prefer their own charts, are both making value judgments about what the comparison should look like? What should it look like and why? What consequence, for economic growth and well-being follows from the correlation between worker compensation and CEO compensation? If they diverge too wildly is this bad for the economy, for workers or what? It is interesting to me that we assume it should look a certain way, but we can't explain why.</p> One problem I see is we have no sense of the true cost of living. It may well be that if you take into account wages and other compensation like health care, that workers are keeping pace with their employers. but is it a decent living wage? Am I to assume that the working class who are the focus of both Presidential campaigns really aren’t hurting and don’t care about their economic state. This makes no sense to me. When the media interviews these people they express frustration about making ends meet, staying ahead and participating in the American dream. But I’m glad to see that our statistical charts make these complaints irrelevant.

And why is there an increasing discrepancy between CEO pay and the average worker? Does the consideration of CEO pay take into account the “other benefits” (health and otherwise) that owners of capital receive as compensation? Or do we discount other types of compensation when speaking of CEO’s. I have no confidence that there would be an “apples to apples” comparison even if other compensation were included. After all, if you make enough money you may not need to worry about health care benefits or things of that sort since you have sufficient funds to buy a good policy or pay out of pocket. I don’t know how you would make this comparable, and it is a value judgement to assume that workers and unions “choose health care benefits” over other compensation. What else might they do if they don’t see a chance for a good raise and if they are seeing increasing costs for health care?

It’s a nice academic argument, but it seems to ignore the messiness of real world compensation and negotiating influence. I’m all for good charts, but there is a self-serving aspect to this display of data. After all, the NYT and those who prefer their own charts, are both making value judgments about what the comparison should look like? What should it look like and why? What consequence, for economic growth and well-being follows from the correlation between worker compensation and CEO compensation? If they diverge too wildly is this bad for the economy, for workers or what? It is interesting to me that we assume it should look a certain way, but we can’t explain why.

]]> By: Mark http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2008/10/bending-over-ba.html/comment-page-1#comment-14164 Mark Mon, 20 Oct 2008 16:18:34 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2008/10/bending-over-ba.html#comment-14164 <p>"If a boob job costs $5k, why can't a routine appendectomy cost $5k?"</p> <p>Because the vast majority of health care costs are fixed. You are not only paying for the variable costs of having the apependectomy, but the fact that the hospital and staff have been hired to work almost 24/7 to cover the probability you were going to have an appendectomy. </p> <p>No matter what the politicians claim, the only way to reduce health care costs is to reduce fixed cost. That means fewer hospital beds, less staff, less technology, and less research and development. There is no other way to cut costs.</p> “If a boob job costs $5k, why can’t a routine appendectomy cost $5k?”

Because the vast majority of health care costs are fixed. You are not only paying for the variable costs of having the apependectomy, but the fact that the hospital and staff have been hired to work almost 24/7 to cover the probability you were going to have an appendectomy.

No matter what the politicians claim, the only way to reduce health care costs is to reduce fixed cost. That means fewer hospital beds, less staff, less technology, and less research and development. There is no other way to cut costs.

]]> By: Mark http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2008/10/bending-over-ba.html/comment-page-1#comment-14163 Mark Mon, 20 Oct 2008 16:15:52 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2008/10/bending-over-ba.html#comment-14163 <p>"If a boob job costs $5k, why can't a routine appendectomy cost $5k?"</p> <p>Because the vast majority of health care costs are fixed. You are not only paying for the variable costs of having the apependectomy, but the fact that the hospital and staff have been hired to work almost 24/7 to cover the probability you were going to have an appendectomy. </p> <p>No matter what the politicians claim, the only way to reduce health care costs is to reduce fixed cost. That means fewer hospital beds, less staff, less technology, and less research and development. There is no other way to cut costs.</p> “If a boob job costs $5k, why can’t a routine appendectomy cost $5k?”

Because the vast majority of health care costs are fixed. You are not only paying for the variable costs of having the apependectomy, but the fact that the hospital and staff have been hired to work almost 24/7 to cover the probability you were going to have an appendectomy.

No matter what the politicians claim, the only way to reduce health care costs is to reduce fixed cost. That means fewer hospital beds, less staff, less technology, and less research and development. There is no other way to cut costs.

]]> By: The other coyote http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2008/10/bending-over-ba.html/comment-page-1#comment-14162 The other coyote Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:15:19 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2008/10/bending-over-ba.html#comment-14162 <p>One other comment. Everyone wants to complain about the cost of health insurance. 2 points: on the one hand, I say health care is expensive because we have the ability to keep a lot more people alive a lot longer than we used to - and all that costs money. Example: Bro-in-law's teenage son went into complete and total (and mysterious) liver failure last Xmas. He got a transplant and he's alive right now. 30 years ago, he would have died, and there was nothing anybody could have done about it. The bill was $250k plus. Those costs are spread around, but everybody's bill is higher when you don't just let people die.</p> <p>Second point. I've noticed that plastic surgeons seem to have it figured out. Breast augmentation in Dallas runs around $5000. No health insurance, no government middle man, it's cash on the barrelhead (or credit card, or for a select few, I hear there is financing available). If a boob job costs $5k, why can't a routine appendectomy cost $5k?</p> One other comment. Everyone wants to complain about the cost of health insurance. 2 points: on the one hand, I say health care is expensive because we have the ability to keep a lot more people alive a lot longer than we used to – and all that costs money. Example: Bro-in-law’s teenage son went into complete and total (and mysterious) liver failure last Xmas. He got a transplant and he’s alive right now. 30 years ago, he would have died, and there was nothing anybody could have done about it. The bill was $250k plus. Those costs are spread around, but everybody’s bill is higher when you don’t just let people die.

Second point. I’ve noticed that plastic surgeons seem to have it figured out. Breast augmentation in Dallas runs around $5000. No health insurance, no government middle man, it’s cash on the barrelhead (or credit card, or for a select few, I hear there is financing available). If a boob job costs $5k, why can’t a routine appendectomy cost $5k?

]]> By: The other coyote http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2008/10/bending-over-ba.html/comment-page-1#comment-14161 The other coyote Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:11:08 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2008/10/bending-over-ba.html#comment-14161 <p>This is one of your best posts. One other way to compare poor in USA vs. poor elsewhere is look what they have in terms of stuff and look at how much they weigh.</p> <p>I read a census statistic that something ridiculous like 90% of households below the poverty line in the US have color TVs and DVD players. The appliance the USA poor have the least of? A dishwasher. Seriously. The poor in the US aren't doing so bad if they can swing a color TV and a DVD player. </p> <p>And look at how much the poor in America weigh. Hell, look at how much Americans weigh, period. In the 1960's, people spent something like 25% of their disposable income just on food. Not so, today. Based on how much fat I see around the middles of even elementary school kids (and I'm fat, too...) food is cheap and plentiful in the good old USA. </p> <p>Now, look at photos of the folks in Viet Nam, Africa, Afghanistan, Peru. If you spend (in Viet Nam, for example) 16 hours a day in the fields hoping to get enough to grow so your family can eat ... now that's poor. </p> This is one of your best posts. One other way to compare poor in USA vs. poor elsewhere is look what they have in terms of stuff and look at how much they weigh.

I read a census statistic that something ridiculous like 90% of households below the poverty line in the US have color TVs and DVD players. The appliance the USA poor have the least of? A dishwasher. Seriously. The poor in the US aren’t doing so bad if they can swing a color TV and a DVD player.

And look at how much the poor in America weigh. Hell, look at how much Americans weigh, period. In the 1960′s, people spent something like 25% of their disposable income just on food. Not so, today. Based on how much fat I see around the middles of even elementary school kids (and I’m fat, too…) food is cheap and plentiful in the good old USA.

Now, look at photos of the folks in Viet Nam, Africa, Afghanistan, Peru. If you spend (in Viet Nam, for example) 16 hours a day in the fields hoping to get enough to grow so your family can eat … now that’s poor.

]]>