McDonalds.....Don't Eat the Food!

[smstonypoint]

This thread has been a reasonably civil dialogue so far. I hope we can avoid the personal insults, name calling, etc. that characterize the discussions of health care insurance over in the "Not So" Friendly Politics Forum.

Steve

 

[NoTrespassing]

I still think a minimum wage worker ($7.25) in 2013 has it easier than a minumum wage worker ($1.30) in 1983 when you compare the cost of living then to today.

 

[dave1949]

I still think a minimum wage worker ($7.25) in 2013 has it easier than a minumum wage worker ($1.30) in 1983 when you compare the cost of living then to today.

The minimum wage in 1983 was $3.35. According to this reference, it was worth $8.81 in 1981 and declining in terms of 2013 real value.

Table 1. on the third page.
www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42973.pdf‎

If that chart is correct, the minimum wage was worth more in the early '80s than today.

 

[NoTrespassing]

The minimum wage in 1983 was $3.35. According to this reference, it was worth $8.81 in 1981 and declining in terms of 2013 real value.

Table 1. on the third page.
www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42973.pdf‎

If that chart is correct, the minimum wage was worth more in the early '80s than today.

Sorry, my mistake, minimum wage was indeed 3.35. The 1.30 figure was a gas price.

 

[dave1949]

Why should the govt (tax payer) be involved in health care for any reason?

I worked my way thru high school and college working at a grocery store. At that time, insurance was free and actually covered about anything. I guess things are not what they used to be (early to mid 80's). They even had good profit sharing. I got a decent sized check when i quit!

I guess this post contradicts itself. I just don't understand what has caused the fundamental change in the last 30 years....but it does have to be the liberal's fault.:laughing:

Think of all the medical procedures that have been developed, or have become commonplace when they were rare 30 years ago. They don't come cheap.

My BIL is waiting for open heart bypass surgery right now. He is in his 70's, not a smoker, not obese, often commutes to his job (physics professor) by bicycle. He had bypass surgery done in 2001 also. In the past, a person with his condition would have slowly declined until their heart function was so reduced they would die from the side effects of that.

It's an ethical and financial conundrum as to how this will work out going forward.

 

[dave1949]

Sorry, my mistake, minimum wage was indeed 3.35. The 1.30 figure was a gas price.

Maybe it seems like they are better off today due to what you spend money on now, compared to then. It would be normal for peoples' spending profiles to change with age. Maybe you got more joy from a gallon of gas then, than now?

 

[MossRoad]

ObamaCare | Health Insurance Exchange
If you make between $11,505 to $46,021 you can buy subsidized private insurance in the state-based online marketplaces. If you make less than $15,302 you may qualify for Medicaid.

You may qualify for discounts to help pay for premiums if your income is from $15,302 to $46,021 for an individual and $31,155 to $93,700 for a family of four.

You can also find out if you qualify for extra subsidies to help with out-of-pocket costs or for government programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Plan.

The minimum wage, 7.25/hour, is $15,080/year at full time 40 hour weeks.

Anyone who has that annual income (or higher) and is over 26 years old (possible parent's plan inclusion) is surely either receiving Medicaid or subsidized private insurance. Since they are required to have insurance, "we" are required to subsidize it.

If an [Edit: low wage] employer pays some of the cost of health insurance, it shows up in the price of the products. If they do not, it shows up in the price of taxes. Either way, "we" pay for it. "We" always did pay for it with some tax money, and some medical care pricing that was high enough to cover those who could not pay.

If a given employer thinks cutting hours below the benefit threshold works for them, fine, but it does not have that great of an effect on the eventual health care costs. If an employer reduces staff hours that they actually need worked, for this benefit reason, they are creating additional part-time jobs to make up the difference. Hours needed is hours needed.

Yes, they will be required to have insurance. The only plans they will be able to afford is the high deductible plans. And it either won't occur to them to save up for the deductible in low illness years or they won't be able to save up the deductible even at $15 per hour. We're talking over $6k per year in single deductibles and $12K in family deductibles. Nobody making $15 per hour, let alone current minimum wage will be able to afford that ever.

As for employers creating additional part time jobs to make up the difference.... so you have three people working 75 hours a week or two people working 75 hours per week, none of which was getting benefits to begin with. The two that got their hours reduced so a third could step in won't be real happy about that.

 

[jerrybob]

Chicken wings flopped, it wasn't a fun shape without bones: "A 10 million pound inventory dilemma. McDonald's Mighty Wings, which were released nationwide this September, turned out to be a major flop, and now the fast food chain has huge stockpile of frozen wings it needs to get rid of." the Wall Street Journal reports.

The good news for McDonalds.....the chickens can't protest cause they can't hold up the signs without them bones!:laughing:

 

[dave1949]

Yes, they will be required to have insurance. The only plans they will be able to afford is the high deductible plans. And it either won't occur to them to save up for the deductible in low illness years or they won't be able to save up the deductible even at $15 per hour. We're talking over $6k per year in single deductibles and $12K in family deductibles. Nobody making $15 per hour, let alone current minimum wage will be able to afford that ever.

As for employers creating additional part time jobs to make up the difference.... so you have three people working 75 hours a week or two people working 75 hours per week, none of which was getting benefits to begin with. The two that got their hours reduced so a third could step in won't be real happy about that.

Who is happy?

A relatively small group of corporations are sitting on $1T + of liquidity, afraid to spend it or don't know how or where to spend it. Some of that might have been useful in paychecks I think.

According this D&T analysis, FTSE 100 companies who have held back smaller cash reserves are outperforming those with large reserves.

www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/.../gx_ma_uk_perspectives.pdf


I think we should send the Economists to Siberia. :laughing:

 

[MossRoad]

You raise their wages and they'll stop working just below the level where the freebies cut out. In Indiana, a single head of household with three kids can get something like $30K+ in financial assistance PLUS $4600 for each kid to attend private school with the state school voucher program. So, to replace that income, a person would have to earn over $21 per hour PLUS give up 40 hours per week of their time. Who in their right mind (as sick as it is) would actually work 40 hours per week at $15 per hour to give up $21 per hour worth of benefits? Its a sick, broken system.