9 ms·

This is the problem with common economic measures. We spend 18% of GDP on health care, but that's just overhead and we should be trying to drive it to zero.

toomuchtodo 8y ago
The people who are that overhead do not want it to be driven to zero.
- bunderbunder 8y ago
  Not per se, but they do wish their own health care weren't so @#$#@% expensive, which amounts to roughly the same thing.
  - kgwgk 8y ago
    Not if the “waste” represents maybe 5% of their spending but accounts for 100% of their income.
- LarryDarrell 8y ago
  When blue collar jobs get destroyed, all I hear about is the benefits of creative destruction and the people will benefit through lower prices. When white collar jobs are threatened, everyone loses their shit.
  - taeric 8y ago
    Oddly, I hear a ton about the loss of blue collar jobs. Your rhetoric makes it look like you likely just notice and are annoyed by the people pointing out some change as inevitable. Ultimately, this comes down to interests and money. Consider how much money is poured into saving a few well lobbied industries. Then look at how many more jobs are lost in the service/retail sector with relatively little press. I mean, sure, we all talked about Toys R Us going under. How many jobs did that represent? Why no considerations of a bailout? Sears, etc? Tons of discussion to prop up coal, of all industries. Retail? If there has been discussion, I've missed it. (So, definitely possible.)
    - pessimizer 8y ago
      > annoyed by the people pointing out some change as inevitable. I think that it's more white-collar people declaring axiomatically that all losses of blue-collar jobs are inevitable due to rising productivity (while productivity is falling), and simultaneously declaring that massive inefficiencies should be preserved to protect white-collar jobs. If we're willing to forgo efficiency, of course all blue collar jobs could be preserved. The inevitability come from the fact that white-collar people get to choose in which areas of industry we should be efficient, and in which areas reducing inefficiencies is pointless.
      - bunderbunder 8y ago
        I see blue collar people suggesting the opposite - for example, supporting massive inefficiencies (like repealing NAFTA) in order to protect domestic blue collar jobs. Humans tending to empathize more readily with people like themselves is a regrettable, but not exactly exceptional or noteworthy, phenomenon.
        toomuchtodo 8y ago
        That’s not regrettable at all when the consumer excess from trade policy hasn’t been evenly distributed across all income cohorts. There is a difference between bureaucracy and labor cost arbitrage. Efficiency without social safety nets and other opportunities to replace existing blue collar jobs is brutal capitalism, inappropriate for a developed nation.
        LyndsySimon 8y ago
        > Efficiency without social safety nets and other opportunities to replace existing blue collar jobs is brutal capitalism, inappropriate for a developed nation. This position is not unanimous. I strongly disagree; "brutal capitalism" is both more efficient and more compassionate in the long run. "Social safety nets" merely transfer the burden to more people, increasing it in the process through bureaucratic overhead.
  - kimdotcom 8y ago
    Which is also weird, because they seem like a smaller voting block, increasingly so?
- gizmo686 8y ago
  What if we drive it to 0, and litterally hand those people the money they would otherwise be making.
- drewg123 8y ago
  Can we re-train them to do something which is actually useful, and which benefits the rest of society? What if we spent 18% of GDP on a new space program, for example..
AnimalMuppet 8y ago
If you have a way of driving the cost to zero without driving the delivery of healthcare to zero, we'd all love to see the plan. Too much of it is overhead, but not all of it, nor even close to all.

toomuchtodo 8y ago

The people who are that overhead do not want it to be driven to zero.

bunderbunder 8y ago
Not per se, but they do wish their own health care weren't so @#$#@% expensive, which amounts to roughly the same thing.
- kgwgk 8y ago
  Not if the “waste” represents maybe 5% of their spending but accounts for 100% of their income.
LarryDarrell 8y ago
When blue collar jobs get destroyed, all I hear about is the benefits of creative destruction and the people will benefit through lower prices. When white collar jobs are threatened, everyone loses their shit.
- taeric 8y ago
  Oddly, I hear a ton about the loss of blue collar jobs. Your rhetoric makes it look like you likely just notice and are annoyed by the people pointing out some change as inevitable. Ultimately, this comes down to interests and money. Consider how much money is poured into saving a few well lobbied industries. Then look at how many more jobs are lost in the service/retail sector with relatively little press. I mean, sure, we all talked about Toys R Us going under. How many jobs did that represent? Why no considerations of a bailout? Sears, etc? Tons of discussion to prop up coal, of all industries. Retail? If there has been discussion, I've missed it. (So, definitely possible.)
  - pessimizer 8y ago
    > annoyed by the people pointing out some change as inevitable. I think that it's more white-collar people declaring axiomatically that all losses of blue-collar jobs are inevitable due to rising productivity (while productivity is falling), and simultaneously declaring that massive inefficiencies should be preserved to protect white-collar jobs. If we're willing to forgo efficiency, of course all blue collar jobs could be preserved. The inevitability come from the fact that white-collar people get to choose in which areas of industry we should be efficient, and in which areas reducing inefficiencies is pointless.
    - bunderbunder 8y ago
      I see blue collar people suggesting the opposite - for example, supporting massive inefficiencies (like repealing NAFTA) in order to protect domestic blue collar jobs. Humans tending to empathize more readily with people like themselves is a regrettable, but not exactly exceptional or noteworthy, phenomenon.
      - toomuchtodo 8y ago
        That’s not regrettable at all when the consumer excess from trade policy hasn’t been evenly distributed across all income cohorts. There is a difference between bureaucracy and labor cost arbitrage. Efficiency without social safety nets and other opportunities to replace existing blue collar jobs is brutal capitalism, inappropriate for a developed nation.
        LyndsySimon 8y ago
        > Efficiency without social safety nets and other opportunities to replace existing blue collar jobs is brutal capitalism, inappropriate for a developed nation. This position is not unanimous. I strongly disagree; "brutal capitalism" is both more efficient and more compassionate in the long run. "Social safety nets" merely transfer the burden to more people, increasing it in the process through bureaucratic overhead.
- kimdotcom 8y ago
  Which is also weird, because they seem like a smaller voting block, increasingly so?
gizmo686 8y ago
What if we drive it to 0, and litterally hand those people the money they would otherwise be making.
drewg123 8y ago
Can we re-train them to do something which is actually useful, and which benefits the rest of society? What if we spent 18% of GDP on a new space program, for example..

AnimalMuppet 8y ago

If you have a way of driving the cost to zero without driving the delivery of healthcare to zero, we'd all love to see the plan. Too much of it is overhead, but not all of it, nor even close to all.