4 ms·

He's saying compensation -- total compensation, not just wages -- has increased. i.e., wages + benefits

by methodover 9y ago

jandrese 9y ago
In other words, all of the extra money is going into health insurance premiums.
- alexasmyths 9y ago
  That's rational. We are getting older, and more broken. We are currently 'shifting' what we value in life. If we spend more on doctors, it may be that they provide more value to us. If we'd rather invest in new surgical procedures over some new kind of social network, well, that's what we want, apparently. Of course with healthcare it's always more complicated, but it's rational that we spend more on health if that's what society values.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    The US spends the most per capita on healthcare out of every industrialized country, with worse outcomes. The only place wages are growing (healthcare compensation) is being siphoned away by parasitic for-profit health insurance companies.
    - KGIII 9y ago
      Maybe a solution is to stop using insurance for things insurance shouldn't be involved with? Do you use your car insurance to pay for a new air freshener? Do you use your home owner's insurance to get a new throw rug? Of course not. Yet, we are using insurance to pay for things like birth control and penis pills. We don't use our car insurance to cover a tune-up or inspection, but we expect our health insurance to cover our check-ups. Stop mandating that the insurance companies cover everything and pay for regular health care out of pocket. Or, you know, go with single payer - which is what I'd suggest. But, expecting insurance to cover regular care just means it is one more avenue where an intermediary is profiting without adding real benefit. Insurance is for when things go wrong, not for regular care. Really, though, I'd strongly suggest single payer.
      - jandrese 9y ago
        It turns out that covering basic preventative care for "free" actually creates better outcomes. People feel obligated to go for the checkup when they've already paid for it, or more accurately are not discouraged from going because they can't afford it this month. Preventing disease is a lot cheaper than treating it in many cases, and creates a better quality of life for the patient. This is one reason countries with socialized medicine fare so much better on their health outcomes at lower cost.
        KGIII 9y ago
        Sure, but it's not free. They are paying for it with their insurance premiums.
    - alexasmyths 9y ago
      " with worse outcomes." No. I completely disagree. The stats on 'bad outcomes' relate to 'life expectancy' etc. - but those are only indirectly related to healthcare. If you have cancer - and could be anywhere in the world - it would be under an American health-insurer. America has the #1 healtchare system in the world for those who are covered. For those who are not - it's terrible, obviously. And, it's crazy expensive as you pointed out. But 'direct outcomes' are not bad - they're good. Due to all the 'inner city violence' + Medics coming back from the war - American emergency rooms have become goddam miracle centres. The number of people dying from gun wounds has dropped dramatically due to the amazing ability of the American healthcare system (perverse reasoning, but hey). It's a crazy situation, but it's not irrational that 'cutting edge healthcare' is 2x expensive as 'socialized healthcare' that we receive here in Canada. 10% improvement (for those covered) at 2x the cost seems about right actually.
pnutjam 9y ago
Maybe in the US, but the article indicates this is a worldwide phenomenon.
panarky 9y ago
That doesn't explain it. Take total US GDP in 1950 and divide by total compensation (wages plus benefits) for all private-sector workers. About 50% of GDP went to workers, and 50% went to owners of capital. That 50% ratio stayed constant until about 1975. The ratio has steadily deteriorated until today, where workers now keep 43% and capital keeps 57%. That 14% is a massive, tectonic shift and shows no signs of reversing.
- Sacho 9y ago
  Wouldn't this be a natural effect of more automation generating wealth rather than direct human labor?
  - panarky 9y ago
    Workers design and build the robots. Why wouldn't those workers capture the benefits of the robots in the same ratio that workers capture the benefits of other things they produce?
    - Sacho 9y ago
      Not necessarily, because the workers need a capital investment to either design(lab, testing equipment) or build(tools, factories) the robots. This means that at least some portion of the wealth they generate will go to the capital investor. In the case of research, there's a significant investment risk, so the potential rewards are seriously skewed towards the investor. In the case of production, depending on the sophistication of the work the investor could still be taking most of the generated wealth. This is what communism talks about with "seizing the means of production" - without capital, the workers cannot exercise their design & production skills, and thus the wealth they generate is split between them and the capital investor. Workers compete with themselves to design breakthrough machines or improve their work productivity in order to generate more wealth; capital investors naturally get exponential gains by continuing to reinvest in a growing economy. In that sense, there should be a steady increase in the capital/worker ratio of GDP ever since the industrial revolution.

He's saying compensation -- total compensation, not just wages -- has increased. i.e., wages + benefits

jandrese 9y ago

In other words, all of the extra money is going into health insurance premiums.

alexasmyths 9y ago
That's rational. We are getting older, and more broken. We are currently 'shifting' what we value in life. If we spend more on doctors, it may be that they provide more value to us. If we'd rather invest in new surgical procedures over some new kind of social network, well, that's what we want, apparently. Of course with healthcare it's always more complicated, but it's rational that we spend more on health if that's what society values.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  The US spends the most per capita on healthcare out of every industrialized country, with worse outcomes. The only place wages are growing (healthcare compensation) is being siphoned away by parasitic for-profit health insurance companies.
  - KGIII 9y ago
    Maybe a solution is to stop using insurance for things insurance shouldn't be involved with? Do you use your car insurance to pay for a new air freshener? Do you use your home owner's insurance to get a new throw rug? Of course not. Yet, we are using insurance to pay for things like birth control and penis pills. We don't use our car insurance to cover a tune-up or inspection, but we expect our health insurance to cover our check-ups. Stop mandating that the insurance companies cover everything and pay for regular health care out of pocket. Or, you know, go with single payer - which is what I'd suggest. But, expecting insurance to cover regular care just means it is one more avenue where an intermediary is profiting without adding real benefit. Insurance is for when things go wrong, not for regular care. Really, though, I'd strongly suggest single payer.
    - jandrese 9y ago
      It turns out that covering basic preventative care for "free" actually creates better outcomes. People feel obligated to go for the checkup when they've already paid for it, or more accurately are not discouraged from going because they can't afford it this month. Preventing disease is a lot cheaper than treating it in many cases, and creates a better quality of life for the patient. This is one reason countries with socialized medicine fare so much better on their health outcomes at lower cost.
      - KGIII 9y ago
        Sure, but it's not free. They are paying for it with their insurance premiums.
  - alexasmyths 9y ago
    " with worse outcomes." No. I completely disagree. The stats on 'bad outcomes' relate to 'life expectancy' etc. - but those are only indirectly related to healthcare. If you have cancer - and could be anywhere in the world - it would be under an American health-insurer. America has the #1 healtchare system in the world for those who are covered. For those who are not - it's terrible, obviously. And, it's crazy expensive as you pointed out. But 'direct outcomes' are not bad - they're good. Due to all the 'inner city violence' + Medics coming back from the war - American emergency rooms have become goddam miracle centres. The number of people dying from gun wounds has dropped dramatically due to the amazing ability of the American healthcare system (perverse reasoning, but hey). It's a crazy situation, but it's not irrational that 'cutting edge healthcare' is 2x expensive as 'socialized healthcare' that we receive here in Canada. 10% improvement (for those covered) at 2x the cost seems about right actually.

pnutjam 9y ago

Maybe in the US, but the article indicates this is a worldwide phenomenon.

panarky 9y ago

That doesn't explain it. Take total US GDP in 1950 and divide by total compensation (wages plus benefits) for all private-sector workers. About 50% of GDP went to workers, and 50% went to owners of capital. That 50% ratio stayed constant until about 1975. The ratio has steadily deteriorated until today, where workers now keep 43% and capital keeps 57%. That 14% is a massive, tectonic shift and shows no signs of reversing.

Sacho 9y ago
Wouldn't this be a natural effect of more automation generating wealth rather than direct human labor?
- panarky 9y ago
  Workers design and build the robots. Why wouldn't those workers capture the benefits of the robots in the same ratio that workers capture the benefits of other things they produce?
  - Sacho 9y ago
    Not necessarily, because the workers need a capital investment to either design(lab, testing equipment) or build(tools, factories) the robots. This means that at least some portion of the wealth they generate will go to the capital investor. In the case of research, there's a significant investment risk, so the potential rewards are seriously skewed towards the investor. In the case of production, depending on the sophistication of the work the investor could still be taking most of the generated wealth. This is what communism talks about with "seizing the means of production" - without capital, the workers cannot exercise their design & production skills, and thus the wealth they generate is split between them and the capital investor. Workers compete with themselves to design breakthrough machines or improve their work productivity in order to generate more wealth; capital investors naturally get exponential gains by continuing to reinvest in a growing economy. In that sense, there should be a steady increase in the capital/worker ratio of GDP ever since the industrial revolution.