Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Ratio of workers to beneficiaries is 1.2

RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 10:34:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
In the U.S:

" In the 1960s, there were 18 workers per Medicaid recipient. Today that number is 2.5.
" The number of Americans on disability has risen 19% faster than jobs created during this recovery.
" There are just 1.2 private sector workers per 1 person on welfare or working for government.
" There are now just 1.65 employed persons in private sector per 1 person on welfare assistance.
http://www.aei-ideas.org...

This is before the vast expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare kicks in. Medicaid costs are expected to double in the next eight years.

Note that people who are neither private sector workers nor welfare recipients or government workers (dependents, retirees, etc.) are not in the computations. There are about 118 million private sector workers and 22 million government workers. 45 million receive food stamps, 54 million receive Medicaid, and a total of 108 million receive welfare of some kind -- that excludes Social security and Medicare. [http://www.gopusa.com...] The various categories overlap so the numbers do not add directly.

This is not sustainable. Only the time to financial collapse is in doubt.
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 10:39:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/12/2012 10:34:18 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
In the U.S:

" In the 1960s, there were 18 workers per Medicaid recipient. Today that number is 2.5.
" The number of Americans on disability has risen 19% faster than jobs created during this recovery.
" There are just 1.2 private sector workers per 1 person on welfare or working for government.
" There are now just 1.65 employed persons in private sector per 1 person on welfare assistance.
http://www.aei-ideas.org...

This is before the vast expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare kicks in. Medicaid costs are expected to double in the next eight years.

Note that people who are neither private sector workers nor welfare recipients or government workers (dependents, retirees, etc.) are not in the computations. There are about 118 million private sector workers and 22 million government workers. 45 million receive food stamps, 54 million receive Medicaid, and a total of 108 million receive welfare of some kind -- that excludes Social security and Medicare. [http://www.gopusa.com...] The various categories overlap so the numbers do not add directly.

: This is not sustainable. Only the time to financial collapse is in doubt.

I'm inclined to agree. Also, taxes were higher in the 1960s, and -the federal government at least- had considerably less power, though the legislative groundwork was being laid for the federal expansion nevertheless.

I'd be curious to know the difference between youth employment then as well. My mother incessantly reminds me that she had a job and has paid taxes since she was 16 (she is 59 now). Respectable though that may be, she makes it seem as if it were far more common for kids to have jobs then than now.

Granted, I kind of grew up in a different social class than she did, but if anyone knows the difference in demographics, I'd be interested to know.
Tsar of DDO
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 10:45:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Inflation will solve most of these issues, although it won't be pretty.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 11:09:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/12/2012 10:34:18 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
In the U.S:

" In the 1960s, there were 18 workers per Medicaid recipient. Today that number is 2.5.
" The number of Americans on disability has risen 19% faster than jobs created during this recovery.
" There are just 1.2 private sector workers per 1 person on welfare or working for government.
" There are now just 1.65 employed persons in private sector per 1 person on welfare assistance.
http://www.aei-ideas.org...

This is before the vast expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare kicks in. Medicaid costs are expected to double in the next eight years.

Note that people who are neither private sector workers nor welfare recipients or government workers (dependents, retirees, etc.) are not in the computations. There are about 118 million private sector workers and 22 million government workers. 45 million receive food stamps, 54 million receive Medicaid, and a total of 108 million receive welfare of some kind -- that excludes Social security and Medicare. [http://www.gopusa.com...] The various categories overlap so the numbers do not add directly.

This is not sustainable. Only the time to financial collapse is in doubt.

Didn't Obama also cut spending (less compensation, not benefits) for Medicare to counter this? Of course, by offering doctors less for their services, I have heard there is fallout with doctors refusing Medicare patients.
My work here is, finally, done.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 11:34:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/12/2012 10:45:44 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Inflation will solve most of these issues, although it won't be pretty.

Not really. Hyperinflation will wipe out everybody's nominal incomes, savings, and purchasing power. Since social security is adjusted for inflation, everybody's nominal incomes would have to keep up with the rate just to remain at regular level, which is nigh impossible. The amount of money flowing to old peeps will fall and their savings will be destroyed. Hardly a "solving of the problem."
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 11:34:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/12/2012 10:45:44 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Inflation will solve most of these issues, although it won't be pretty.

What?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 11:36:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/12/2012 11:34:23 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 12/12/2012 10:45:44 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Inflation will solve most of these issues, although it won't be pretty.

Not really. Hyperinflation will wipe out everybody's nominal incomes, savings, and purchasing power. Since social security is adjusted for inflation, everybody's nominal incomes would have to keep up with the rate just to remain at regular level, which is nigh impossible. The amount of money flowing to old peeps will fall and their savings will be destroyed. Hardly a "solving of the problem."

And then the old folks will demand even more money to compensate for their loss in purchasing power, trapping the economy in a downward spiral.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 11:43:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/12/2012 11:09:00 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/12/2012 10:34:18 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
In the U.S:

" In the 1960s, there were 18 workers per Medicaid recipient. Today that number is 2.5.
" The number of Americans on disability has risen 19% faster than jobs created during this recovery.
" There are just 1.2 private sector workers per 1 person on welfare or working for government.
" There are now just 1.65 employed persons in private sector per 1 person on welfare assistance.
http://www.aei-ideas.org...

This is before the vast expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare kicks in. Medicaid costs are expected to double in the next eight years.

Note that people who are neither private sector workers nor welfare recipients or government workers (dependents, retirees, etc.) are not in the computations. There are about 118 million private sector workers and 22 million government workers. 45 million receive food stamps, 54 million receive Medicaid, and a total of 108 million receive welfare of some kind -- that excludes Social security and Medicare. [http://www.gopusa.com...] The various categories overlap so the numbers do not add directly.

This is not sustainable. Only the time to financial collapse is in doubt.

Didn't Obama also cut spending (less compensation, not benefits) for Medicare to counter this? Of course, by offering doctors less for their services, I have heard there is fallout with doctors refusing Medicare patients.

Yes and conservatives complained when liberals cut Medicare spending.

Or course, those numbers mean very little. They broad brush and group so many things, they don't show reality. For example, before my child was born, my wife and I qualified for $10 a month in food stamps. This metric would have that listed as the same as someone collecting $300 a month in food stamps (to anyone wondering, we did not follow up to get that aid). Basically, 1 welfare collector =/= another.

In 2010, the total welfare spending in the US by the government was $786 billion [1] (this spending is actually expected to decrease over the years [1]). This while total personal income in 2010 was $12,300 billion [2] and corporate profits in 2008 were $5,700 billion [3] (sorry, my source only goes to Q3 of 2009). The idea of a ratio of workers to welfare collectors is laughable on many levels.

[1] http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...
[2] http://bber.unm.edu...
[3] http://www.gpo.gov...
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 11:47:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/12/2012 10:45:44 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Inflation will solve most of these issues, although it won't be pretty.

Inflation won't be an issue unless the fed does something like QE4 and print 85 billion dollars a month until unemployment falls below 6.5%...

...Shoot Bernanke just announced today that that's exactly what they will be doing.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 12:00:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/12/2012 10:39:11 PM, YYW wrote:
I'm inclined to agree. Also, taxes were higher in the 1960s, and -the federal government at least- had considerably less power, though the legislative groundwork was being laid for the federal expansion nevertheless.

Tax rates were higher in the 60s, but very few people actually paid at those rates. People went into tax shelters instead. In a moment of candor in the 2008 campaign, Obama admitted that raising rates probably wouldn't raise any revenue, but should be done for "social justice." I assume he means as a symbolic act to show contempt for the rich. Tax shelters are inefficient investment, so it makes the economy worse.

I'd be curious to know the difference between youth employment then as well. My mother incessantly reminds me that she had a job and has paid taxes since she was 16 (she is 59 now). Respectable though that may be, she makes it seem as if it were far more common for kids to have jobs then than now.

Ha, I'm older than your mother. Yes, it was easier to get jobs back in the 60s. The recession in the late 70s was the worst economy until now. Unemployment was 11% and interest rates over 13% then.

Granted, I kind of grew up in a different social class than she did, but if anyone knows the difference in demographics, I'd be interested to know.

Be interesting. I don't know the numbers. The baby boomers were in their teens in the 60s, so the young population was large.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 12:06:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/12/2012 11:09:00 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

Didn't Obama also cut spending (less compensation, not benefits) for Medicare to counter this? Of course, by offering doctors less for their services, I have heard there is fallout with doctors refusing Medicare patients.

Yes, there was an across-the-board cut in Medicare reimbursement. In the past Medicare underpaid, and the doctors and hospitals made it up by charging patients with private insurance more. With government regulating private insurance, that scheme won't work. A quarter of the doctors in Florida (lots of old people there) are now refusing new Medicare patients. Med school enrollments are down, so shortages will increase.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 12:12:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 12:06:08 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 12/12/2012 11:09:00 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

Didn't Obama also cut spending (less compensation, not benefits) for Medicare to counter this? Of course, by offering doctors less for their services, I have heard there is fallout with doctors refusing Medicare patients.

Yes, there was an across-the-board cut in Medicare reimbursement. In the past Medicare underpaid, and the doctors and hospitals made it up by charging patients with private insurance more. With government regulating private insurance, that scheme won't work. A quarter of the doctors in Florida (lots of old people there) are now refusing new Medicare patients. Med school enrollments are down, so shortages will increase.

Don't you love how the same force that drove up the cost of healthcare (under-reimbursment) is the exact same argument that needed to be addressed by the solution of Obamacare? The uninsured cost everyone money, but not Medicare?

Government good, two legs bad.
My work here is, finally, done.
Muted
Posts: 377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 12:46:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/12/2012 10:34:18 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
In the U.S:

" In the 1960s, there were 18 workers per Medicaid recipient. Today that number is 2.5.
" The number of Americans on disability has risen 19% faster than jobs created during this recovery.
" There are just 1.2 private sector workers per 1 person on welfare or working for government.
" There are now just 1.65 employed persons in private sector per 1 person on welfare assistance.
http://www.aei-ideas.org...

This is before the vast expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare kicks in. Medicaid costs are expected to double in the next eight years.

Note that people who are neither private sector workers nor welfare recipients or government workers (dependents, retirees, etc.) are not in the computations. There are about 118 million private sector workers and 22 million government workers. 45 million receive food stamps, 54 million receive Medicaid, and a total of 108 million receive welfare of some kind -- that excludes Social security and Medicare. [http://www.gopusa.com...] The various categories overlap so the numbers do not add directly.

This is not sustainable. Only the time to financial collapse is in doubt.

Fixed
Exterminate!!!!!!-Dalek.

The ability to speak does not make you a competent debater.

One does not simply do the rain dance.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2012 2:02:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/12/2012 11:43:58 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

Yes and conservatives complained when liberals cut Medicare spending.

The complaint was that arbitrary cuts were made and the money transferred to pay for Obamacare. Obama claimed to have discovered waste in Medicare, but all expenditures were simply cut by the same percentage.

Or course, those numbers mean very little. ... Basically, 1 welfare collector =/= another.

the main point is the size of the constituency. The more people receive benefits, the lower the possibility of ever cutting anything. Government employees get paid more than private sector employees, the people going on permanent disability are high cost, and the more people that get money from the government the more powerful the political force to increase the payments.

In 2010, the total welfare spending in the US by the government was $786 billion [1] (this spending is actually expected to decrease over the years [1]). This while total personal income in 2010 was $12,300 billion [2] and corporate profits in 2008 were $5,700 billion [3] (sorry, my source only goes to Q3 of 2009). The idea of a ratio of workers to welfare collectors is laughable on many levels.

The projections on the web site you give are by the blogger who runs that site. Welfare spending is expected to rise from about $750 billion/yr to about a $1 trillion/yr in the text four years. "According to President Obama's budget projections, federal and state welfare spending will total $10.3 trillion over the next 10 years (FY 2009 to FY 2018." http://www.heritage.org...; It rose by more than a third in the past four years.

The costs of social security and medicare were underestimated by huge factors. It's likely Obamacare will have the same fate.

We must also support government employees. The average Federal civil servant compensation is $123,049 and the average state civil service compensation is $69,913. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com... there are 2.2 million civilian federal workers, $0.270 trillion and 4.3 million state employees, $0.296 trillion.

So current total costs for beneficiaries of the system are about $1.25 trillion. Total Federal tax revenues from all sources are $2.3 trillion. The state and local revenues are perhaps a quarter of that.

Total corporate profits are $1.75 trillion, not the $5.5 trillion you cited. http://money.cnn.com... Corporate taxes in the US are currently the highest in the world. Total personal income is 12.9 trillion, but the top 10% of earners pay about 70% of the taxes, and attempts to further tax the "rich" will yield little revenue. Much of the total earnings are not taxed or taxed very little. What will be required is to raise middle class taxes, perhaps to the 50%-60% level.

You're right that it isn't welfare alone that is the driving force. It's the total of all beneficiaries of the system, including medicare and social security. Current interest of the national debt is about $0.4 trillion because interest rates are kept artificially low. If interest rates merely return to normal, that would add $1 trillion each year.