4 ms·

Your second source is giving an error. > ~70% of employees receive health insurance benefits. From your third source: > For part-time workers, access to medi

Your second source is giving an error. > ~70% of employees receive health insurance benefits. From your third source: > For part-time workers, access to medical care benefits was 21 percent and the take- up rate was 56 percent. Post-2008 recession saw a restructuring of employment. I know plenty of college graduates who are saddled with debt and are scheduled to work slightly less than full-time hours in order to sidestep having to be offered benefits. Nearly 80% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck[1]. 40% of Americans can't cover a $400 emergency expense[2]. Wages have stagnated for most Americans since the 1970s[3]. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2019/01/11/live-paycheck-to-paycheck-government-shutdown/#3f64b8944f10 https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2019/01/11/live-pa... [2] https://money.cnn.com/2018/05/22/pf/emergency-expenses-household-finances/index.html https://money.cnn.com/2018/05/22/pf/emergency-expenses-house... [3] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us...

zaroth 7y ago
The BLS numbers break down the access, participation, and take-up rates for public and private workers, as well as union and non-union, full time and part-time. There’s a very handy table. For all workers overall, access is 72%, take-up is 73%, so overall participation is 52%. Thats Table 1, Row 1. Of course sub-populations like part-time workers have lower access and take-up, but they are included in the average for All Workers. See Table 1 on Page 6 of the BLS numbers. The claim that “benefits are rare” is demonstrably false. Benefits are rare for certain sub-populations of US workers, but not rare overall. Real wage are stagnant (not clear if those real wages are accounting for increased employer share of medical benefits) from the 1970s. Real household income is not stagnant, particularly since 2010. (Edit: Household income vs individual wages — perhaps household income rising reflects mainly the participation rate increasing? Which would be a negative effect on individual wages.) Again, the point is about recent increases in suicide rate in the context of a 2008 recession.
- fucking_tragedy 7y ago
  > There is no error. Yes, there is. From your second source: > Looking for Something? > We're sorry, the page you were looking for cannot be found. Please feel free to contact us if the problem persists.
  - zaroth 7y ago
    I misunderstood. Fixed.

zaroth 7y ago

The BLS numbers break down the access, participation, and take-up rates for public and private workers, as well as union and non-union, full time and part-time. There’s a very handy table. For all workers overall, access is 72%, take-up is 73%, so overall participation is 52%. Thats Table 1, Row 1. Of course sub-populations like part-time workers have lower access and take-up, but they are included in the average for All Workers. See Table 1 on Page 6 of the BLS numbers. The claim that “benefits are rare” is demonstrably false. Benefits are rare for certain sub-populations of US workers, but not rare overall. Real wage are stagnant (not clear if those real wages are accounting for increased employer share of medical benefits) from the 1970s. Real household income is not stagnant, particularly since 2010. (Edit: Household income vs individual wages — perhaps household income rising reflects mainly the participation rate increasing? Which would be a negative effect on individual wages.) Again, the point is about recent increases in suicide rate in the context of a 2008 recession.

fucking_tragedy 7y ago
> There is no error. Yes, there is. From your second source: > Looking for Something? > We're sorry, the page you were looking for cannot be found. Please feel free to contact us if the problem persists.
- zaroth 7y ago
  I misunderstood. Fixed.