4 ms·

Well, that's the problem, isn't it. These are supposed to be the "good times" but normal people can't afford to live on the wages all those new jobs afford them

Well, that's the problem, isn't it. These are supposed to be the "good times" but normal people can't afford to live on the wages all those new jobs afford them (and god help you if you get sick or need healthcare for whatever reason). They're going to be screwed even worse when it stops being the "good times". If this is what our economy has to offer in the "good times" then............. maybe something is fundamentally wrong with it.

squirrelicus 8y ago
In comparison to history when people actually just died when they got the flu, things are much better than you indicate. Health Care is scarce. There must be a mechanism for rationing. Some must be left behind. There is no other option.
- fndrplayer13 8y ago
  Health care isn't scarce in most of the first world. Many first world societies offer health care to all of their citizens, and those visiting their country. Much as we view education as a fundamental human right in the United States and no longer treat it as scarce, most other societies view healthcare as a fundamental human right. As a society and political system the United States has actively made the choice to pursue a profit-based, insurance-centered care model that is purposefully scarce. Which is to say, I completely disagree that there is no other option.
  - Notorious_BLT 8y ago
    Many first world societies have unreasonably long waiting periods to receive specialist attention and care. For example, Canada's average wait from referral to specialist appointment was 10.2 weeks in 2017, up from 3.7 in 1993. The average wait period for treatment was 10.9, up from 5.6 in 1993. 4.1 weeks for a CT Scan, 10.8 for an MRI. Some types of treatment require almost a year of waiting. Hope you aren't in a hurry to get your health issues resolved. It IS scarce in the short term. Not everyone can get treatment right away, someone will have to wait. And the wait times seem to gradually trend upward, which would indicate (at first glance at least) that it cannot keep up. There's no magical solution to getting everyone timely care.
    - phil248 8y ago
      "Hope you aren't in a hurry to get your health issues resolved." You make it sound so scary, but you make no mention of health outcomes. I don't care if an appointment happens in 10 minutes or 10 weeks, so long as the outcomes are positive. Wait times alone are not a meaningful metric to me.
      - passing_by_and 8y ago
        Well, the parent is illustrating a basic point of freshman economics. We ration scarcity with cost (money) or time. In this case Canada chose to be "fair" and ration scarcity of medical care with lines. Your comment belies a belief that peoples time or comfort are worth nothing. Should my children wait a year or more to have a specialist examine a chronic skin condition that thus far cannot be treated and causes severe itching? In Canada the answer is yes. Ever dealt with a toddler that can't sleep and you can't help? Acute care here is the same. People die waiting at emergency. 24 hour waits for patients not bleeding out on the floor happen (but usually we can keep it down to 12).
        phil248 8y ago
        "Your comment belies a belief that peoples time or comfort are worth nothing" You mention nothing about comfort, just wait times, which is essentially my point. Are people being left in extreme discomfort? If so, that is a problem. Health outcomes help paint that picture, and in most first world systems outcomes are good.
        glhaynes 8y ago
        Should my children wait a year or more to have a specialist examine a chronic skin condition that thus far cannot be treated and causes severe itching? That sucks for there to be long waits, but the alternative being evaluated (the USA's system) has lots of people not ever getting treatment.
  - zip1234 8y ago
    There are a limited number of health care practitioners, health care facilities, etc. The demand for health care is unlimited as people get older.
    - dv_dt 8y ago
      And yet in nations like Japan, where there are proportionately a greater number of elderly than in the US, their healthcare delivers at a much lower cost (by half!) as well as a higher life expectancy. This despite a decades long economic stagnation, as opposed to the curious economic "good times" in the US which seems to decrease our life expectancy and increase our health care costs.
- dv_dt 8y ago
  Comparisons to the older times would be more apt if people weren't today dying for example from diabetes not from lack of medical knowledge, but of price of the insulin. It is also relevant that insulin is not fundamentally expensive to produce, and that in other first world nations, this kind of death by healthcare driven financial cuts simply do not occur.
- draw_down 8y ago
  For rich people that is probably true. Everyone else is like, going bankrupt from medical bills, starting Gofundmes to pay for their medication, and still dying anyway. Our life expectancy is going down. Having a kid is a much more expensive proposition here than elsewhere. Homelessness and opioids are huge problems and only getting worse. The list goes on. America resembles third-world countries more and more as time goes on. And we don't want to admit it.
djrogers 8y ago
> normal people can't afford to live on the wages all those new jobs afford them I don’t believe reality agrees with your assumption here. It’s true that an average wage worker can’t afford to live in any city of their choice, and there are some markets that are out of reach for most. It’s also true that an average wage earner today enjoys a higher standard of living than at any point in history - bigger house, more cars, tvs, and luxury items.
- flukus 8y ago
  > It’s also true that an average wage earner today enjoys a higher standard of living than at any point in history - bigger house, more cars, tvs, and luxury items. I really disagree with that. I'm a 35 year old single man with no kids and a well payed software developer, better paid than 90% of the population. At this point in life my father had a stay at home wife, 2 kids and was working for near minimum wage as a cleaner. He had a huge 4 bedroom house, double garage, large backyard with a swimming pool, 2 cars etc and was close to paying off the house at my age. Meanwhile I'm looking forward to pay off a tiny studio apartment in a few years. Yes we've got bigger TV's and smart phones now, but they don't contribute to a high standard of living.
  - djrogers 8y ago
    And you chose to live in the most expensive area in the USA, while your father did not correct? If you are earning in the top 10% and can barely eke out a living, you either need to re-align your priorities, accept your lot, or move.
    - flukus 8y ago
      If I moved back not much would change, I'd maybe have a whole bedroom but the jobs pay less. Take fixed expenses like groceries and electricity I to account and it ends up about even.

squirrelicus 8y ago

In comparison to history when people actually just died when they got the flu, things are much better than you indicate. Health Care is scarce. There must be a mechanism for rationing. Some must be left behind. There is no other option.

fndrplayer13 8y ago
Health care isn't scarce in most of the first world. Many first world societies offer health care to all of their citizens, and those visiting their country. Much as we view education as a fundamental human right in the United States and no longer treat it as scarce, most other societies view healthcare as a fundamental human right. As a society and political system the United States has actively made the choice to pursue a profit-based, insurance-centered care model that is purposefully scarce. Which is to say, I completely disagree that there is no other option.
- Notorious_BLT 8y ago
  Many first world societies have unreasonably long waiting periods to receive specialist attention and care. For example, Canada's average wait from referral to specialist appointment was 10.2 weeks in 2017, up from 3.7 in 1993. The average wait period for treatment was 10.9, up from 5.6 in 1993. 4.1 weeks for a CT Scan, 10.8 for an MRI. Some types of treatment require almost a year of waiting. Hope you aren't in a hurry to get your health issues resolved. It IS scarce in the short term. Not everyone can get treatment right away, someone will have to wait. And the wait times seem to gradually trend upward, which would indicate (at first glance at least) that it cannot keep up. There's no magical solution to getting everyone timely care.
  - phil248 8y ago
    "Hope you aren't in a hurry to get your health issues resolved." You make it sound so scary, but you make no mention of health outcomes. I don't care if an appointment happens in 10 minutes or 10 weeks, so long as the outcomes are positive. Wait times alone are not a meaningful metric to me.
    - passing_by_and 8y ago
      Well, the parent is illustrating a basic point of freshman economics. We ration scarcity with cost (money) or time. In this case Canada chose to be "fair" and ration scarcity of medical care with lines. Your comment belies a belief that peoples time or comfort are worth nothing. Should my children wait a year or more to have a specialist examine a chronic skin condition that thus far cannot be treated and causes severe itching? In Canada the answer is yes. Ever dealt with a toddler that can't sleep and you can't help? Acute care here is the same. People die waiting at emergency. 24 hour waits for patients not bleeding out on the floor happen (but usually we can keep it down to 12).
      - phil248 8y ago
        "Your comment belies a belief that peoples time or comfort are worth nothing" You mention nothing about comfort, just wait times, which is essentially my point. Are people being left in extreme discomfort? If so, that is a problem. Health outcomes help paint that picture, and in most first world systems outcomes are good.
      - glhaynes 8y ago
        Should my children wait a year or more to have a specialist examine a chronic skin condition that thus far cannot be treated and causes severe itching? That sucks for there to be long waits, but the alternative being evaluated (the USA's system) has lots of people not ever getting treatment.
- zip1234 8y ago
  There are a limited number of health care practitioners, health care facilities, etc. The demand for health care is unlimited as people get older.
  - dv_dt 8y ago
    And yet in nations like Japan, where there are proportionately a greater number of elderly than in the US, their healthcare delivers at a much lower cost (by half!) as well as a higher life expectancy. This despite a decades long economic stagnation, as opposed to the curious economic "good times" in the US which seems to decrease our life expectancy and increase our health care costs.
dv_dt 8y ago
Comparisons to the older times would be more apt if people weren't today dying for example from diabetes not from lack of medical knowledge, but of price of the insulin. It is also relevant that insulin is not fundamentally expensive to produce, and that in other first world nations, this kind of death by healthcare driven financial cuts simply do not occur.
draw_down 8y ago
For rich people that is probably true. Everyone else is like, going bankrupt from medical bills, starting Gofundmes to pay for their medication, and still dying anyway. Our life expectancy is going down. Having a kid is a much more expensive proposition here than elsewhere. Homelessness and opioids are huge problems and only getting worse. The list goes on. America resembles third-world countries more and more as time goes on. And we don't want to admit it.

djrogers 8y ago

> normal people can't afford to live on the wages all those new jobs afford them I don’t believe reality agrees with your assumption here. It’s true that an average wage worker can’t afford to live in any city of their choice, and there are some markets that are out of reach for most. It’s also true that an average wage earner today enjoys a higher standard of living than at any point in history - bigger house, more cars, tvs, and luxury items.

flukus 8y ago
> It’s also true that an average wage earner today enjoys a higher standard of living than at any point in history - bigger house, more cars, tvs, and luxury items. I really disagree with that. I'm a 35 year old single man with no kids and a well payed software developer, better paid than 90% of the population. At this point in life my father had a stay at home wife, 2 kids and was working for near minimum wage as a cleaner. He had a huge 4 bedroom house, double garage, large backyard with a swimming pool, 2 cars etc and was close to paying off the house at my age. Meanwhile I'm looking forward to pay off a tiny studio apartment in a few years. Yes we've got bigger TV's and smart phones now, but they don't contribute to a high standard of living.
- djrogers 8y ago
  And you chose to live in the most expensive area in the USA, while your father did not correct? If you are earning in the top 10% and can barely eke out a living, you either need to re-align your priorities, accept your lot, or move.
  - flukus 8y ago
    If I moved back not much would change, I'd maybe have a whole bedroom but the jobs pay less. Take fixed expenses like groceries and electricity I to account and it ends up about even.