Because, good bad or indifference, everyone is used to $10 medium or $15 large pizzas, not something costing 50% more. They haven't figured out a way of robots or automating pizza delivery (yet) so it's probably better(?) to have 10 kids making $10/hour than 5 (or less) kids making $20/hour. If pizzas were priced so that it becomes unprofitable except in the more affluent areas, then you would have 0 kids making nothing (which is what are seeing in many sectors).

Speaking of which, I have been on the bandwagon of wellness as a way of reducing health care costs (for companies and individuals). My company has won awards for its wellness program and last I checked, it is making a difference in cost.

There's a good article on cnn.com that talks about the high cost of disease management (which I can relate to) instead of focusing more in lower cost wellness management.

U.S. manages disease, not health - CNN.com

Thoughts?

So let me get this straight because I'm confused. See, I'm pretty sure the delivery guy's job did change from 1930 to 1970.

Let me paint a picture. This guy started off delivering pizza's in 1930. In 1935 he moved to pizza delivery shift supervisor and got a pay raise (and the delivery guy position was filled by somebody else). In 1940 he promoted up to pizza delivery store manager (and got a pay raise). In 1945 he bacame the district manager (and got a pay raise). In 1950 he moved to corporate (and got a pay raise). In 1955 he retired from the pizza industry.

So fast forward a bit. In 1970, he still pulling in a retirement check and the left is bashing him for being part of the "wealthy elite" and trying to take his hard earned money so that the 20-year old "pizza delivery guy" can make $75,000 a year from day one and be the equal with that old "elitist".

Or something like that. But what you are saying is that is incorrect. That the "pizza delivery guy" was getting wicked awesome salaries from day 1 from 1930 to 1970? I find that hard to believe. Unless we are starting from the depression and then stepping away from depression and back to standard normalized American prosperity. All in all, I think that chart misses the boat.

I was afraid the delivery guy example would lead to confusion. Don't think of a guy aging and increasing in salary. This is a snapshot of the same job from year to year.

I don't know how the chart misses the boat when it's just presenting productivity and wage data. It's showing the economy as a whole, not any specific indeividual.

How do you explain the huge increase in income for the wealthy? Why aren't their increases leading to people not buying pizza?

I think what your company does is great and more companies should. The problem is that gains in health probably don't lead to better bottom lines for insurance companies, so they focus on this only minimally. With the way people change healthplans, every insurance company is worried about paying for some other company's savings. There's a lot of money to be saved, but it will have to happen at a company level and a lot of companies don't want to put the time into that.

Stock prices and market - nearly 3000% increase since 1989 - and everyone from your university to my pension fund jumping into it to invest. These are the people whose compensation is tied directly to stocks (or paid in stocks), as well as the those many insta-millionaires in high techs. I have always been critical of those getting huge compensations for declining performance but I think those are in the minority. Far fewer people at the top of the pyramid (as a percentage of total labor cost), as it always have been throughout history. Dutch is correct in a sense that in this country, a lowly delivery guy can reach the top of pyramid. We don't want to reduce the incentive to make that happen.

Wonder what he wants? There's not another famine in North Korea is there?

Kinda glad I don't live in DC.

North Korea declares 1953 armistice invalid - CNN.com

Not all Bucc, the really wealthy don't bank on the stock market to make money. The thing is, it's really easy to make money when you have money, and it's really easy to use your money and status to keep your money and status. You can make the rules by participating in politics and lobbying, you can consolidate power by networking and sitting on the boards of your new friends businesses, and do things that nobody delivering pizzas and raising 2 kids can do or could ever do.

The idea of class movement is really controlled by those with the money, outside of a few outliers that make it and sell it. Just like the lottery we see that as opportunity even if the reality of it isn't there.

We aren't talking about pensioners or professors making good money and having good retirement plans we are talking about people with so much money, they earn 10k overnight because of earned interest on AA bonds (very low risk). You and I can't even come close to that.

The idea that someone can go from the lower end of the spectrum 15k to start all the way to a good leadership job 150k per year is upward movement, but it's not really a class change even though it is incentive for people to work hard, but realistically, he has no chance to make the top of the pyramid.

Like I said earlier, 250k shouldn't put you in the top 5%. It is because the amount of money earned at the upper levels is so grossly out of whack and so much is earned by so few.

I guess I focus too much on the new economy and Silicon Valley (and its offshoots) and the rise of high tech since the 1970s, since that's my field.

Isn't the just part of inflation?


Didn't I explain this? As molson pointed out:


People could sell their products all around the world these days, with much lower costs of barrier. Companies and entrepreneurs can move just as much product and services in emerging markets these days than they can here. At the same time, they'll focus their financial, operational, and talent resources on these markets, instead of scaling up staff here in the U.S.

Also, technology is much easier today, and reduces the need for big staffs. An app or website can replace a lot of standard skills. Skype, social media, and smartphones are disrupting marketing, communications, and the ability to access any information. Robotic and autonomous technology is only going to get bigger and more advanced. Also, travel is much cheaper than it used to be 30 years ago, such as airline tickets, "sharing" (Airbnb, zipcar, ect.), so it's easier and cheaper to conduct business globally. This is the future of our economy, and it's not going to be pretty unless you are pulling the cart.

But we don't have to see that as just.

This doesn't HAVE to be the case at all - its a choice society makes imho.

If you doubt this consider that 'economically' speaking keeping people in slavery makes far more sense from a capitalist perspective than having 'free' workers ..... or are you saying that moral judgements aren't important and everything should come down to pure economics?

(I for one think society should be designed to ensure a decent standard of living for all within it - that doesn't mean you can't have 'rich' people by any means nor incentives for people to succeed .... but it doesn't have to mean stamping down hard on the heads of the worst off either)

I don't think this is possible. The only way to move up to a different class is to advance beyond others in that class. Inflation will move with an increase in absolute dollars to the point where there are roughly the same number of people in each class. I don't know this for sure, but I believe inflation will keep the same percentage of people in each class. Bill Gates earning more money doesn't change the purchasing power of anyone since he can't really consume more. The only way to move people from the lower class to the middle class is to increase their income beyond those currently in the middle class...which creates a new lower class.

It's weird that there's a belief that the poor and/or middle class can't ever make more money because of inflation. Rising wages aren't necessarily immediately canceled out by inflation.

There will always be people better off than others and thus in 'essence' a lower class.

This in itself isn't an issue nor something which we should attempt to prevent HOWEVER its my opinion that lower class should still have an adequate standard of living such that they feel part of the larger society and not disenfranchised from it.

I definitely agree that that should be the focus. As well as creating greater opportunities to do even better than that minimal adequate standard of living for those who have more to offer society.

I wonder how that fits in with class mobility - like if you're a middle aged guy in a lower class, your odds of becoming upper middle class are almost zero. I'm not sure that's a terrible thing. But if that guy's kid has a decent public education, stability, and some kind of major talent/work ethic/intelligence, his chances of getting into the middle class are pretty decent (and it's worthwhile for society to increase those odds even more.) I'm not sure if that counts as "rising classes" or not. But I've always thought that was important for any society, to locate and elevate the talent wherever it is. The fact that we're fortunate enough to have a lot of wealthiest and most successful people in the world isn't a bad thing, the tax revenue generated by those people can be the means by which we create more of the opportunities.

Not immediately, but rising wages cause inflation. If you take someone in the lower class and double their salary, inflation won't take that away. If you take everyone in the country and double their salary, inflation will rise to leave you with very little difference aside from what you can buy from other countries. To improve your position, you need to get closer to, or above those who were above you.

I don't disagree with this, but I also don't know how to make it happen. It may be less of giving them an adequate standard of living and more reducing the barriers to obtain that standard of living. Break up the monopolies and the vertical integration and you make it easier for small businesses to survive. Tax the rich and give to the poor/middle, and you increase purchasing power and standard of living. Government would need to do something to level the playing field since unfettered capitalism will definitely not. Sadly, these are things that are a tough sell as the rich want to stay rich, and the middle are scared of becoming the new poor. The government taking control shatters the illusion of control that rich/middle think they have.

The rich and companies will just pass their tax hikes onto their consumers (the lower classes).

If you do it instantly, sure, but over time wages have gone up for the country as a whole and they haven't been cancelled by inflation. People get a lot more compensation now than they did in 1900.

Inflation-adjusted wages also aren't the only way to measure standard of living. I'd rather be middle class now than in my parents' or grandparents' day, even if they were closer wealth-wise to the 1% than I am now. Various technologies have made our lives a lot easier, and a lot of the stuff we spend disposable income on, like air travel, is a lot cheaper now. I live now like I would have imagined a rich person living when I was a kid.

Except for one thing, molson. You have to subtract all of your debts to get your true net worth. I suspect that my parents or your grandparents had a higher net worth and standard of living as a result since they didn't run up debts to pay for stuff and toys they couldn't afford.

I've seen this argument quite a bit, and I find it really curious. What would it really take to reduce the incentive of people to make it to the top? Let's take an extreme example that isn't even close to being proposed, like a 50% top tax bracket. Is there anyone who would suddenly not want to be rich under this scenario? If so, that kind of thinking just completely baffles me.

It shouldn't be that baffling as money isn't the only goal for people. Everybody makes an evaluation as to the amount of time/effort required against the benefits of the increased salary. At some point, the lost time with the kids becomes more valuable than the extra salary to provide for them. A higher tax rate does shift that tipping point. Having that tipping point shift could be a good thing, or a bad thing.

For those already at the top, the tax rate won't make them no longer want to be there, but it may affect those working their way up.

You really think it will affect the pizza deliveryman? He sees a 50% tax rate and decides that he's fine with being a pizza deliveryman because it's not worth it to move up? I agree that in certain scenarios people might make different decisions based on tax rates, but the proposition that people won't want to seek the American Dream because of higher taxes makes absolutely no sense to me.

Speaking for myself, I might work more or less overtime in the short term if my taxes changed, but it would take a drastic measure far beyond anything that has been proposed (and certainly far beyond my already extreme example of 50%) to reduce my incentive to move up the ladder and be more financially secure.

I think everybody already makes their own decision as to what is "enough" and when they can exit the rat race. The 50% tax rate won't cause people to stop moving up, but it will shift the position of how far they will move up to. I don't know how big that shift will be, and it may be a very small shift, but there will be a shift. In any cost/benefit decision, changing the level of cost without changing the level of benefit will change the tipping point.

The amount of shift probably also depends on the personality of the person in question. If the delivery guy doesn't care about family and only measures his worth by his salary, nothing will change. If the delivery guy values life more in the work/life balance, he may shift his goals from reaching a corporate director level to a store manager, or a corporate middle-manager. It is still a meaningful rise, but it is also a meaningful shift in goals.

Wow, Paul Ryan. I mean.. Just wow. Big national rollout of the GOP alternative to Obama's Budget (part II), and he says this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT3Px...layer_embedded


expect to see that quote in political ads about 9 billion times.

Beat me to it by 4 minutes foz. Aah the deliciousness of a Fruedian slip, a textbook gaffe.

A little humor.

O'Reilly: 'I'm sorry I said Alan was lying' - POLITICO.com

Healthcare really needs to be detached from employment.

Saw this one making the rounds this week. $83,000 for a scorpion anti-venom that costs $100 in Mexico. Fortunately the lady had insurance, so she only had to pay $25,000. The insurance (i.e., the rest of us through our premiums and taxes) picked up the rest.

Arizona Hospital Charges Woman $83,000 To Treat Scorpion Sting « CBS Las Vegas

I don't understand how giving the insurance companies millions more customers and more power is going to help. I don't understand why "more insurance for everyone!" is the response. At this point, I think we'd have better access to affordable healthcare in this country if we banned insurance completely and everyone had to make do with out-of pocket expenses and charitable organizations. The providers and drug companies would have to adjust. They wouldn't be selling a lot of $83,000 scorpion antivenums (especially when there's cheaper options). The wouldn't even be selling a lot for the $25k this lady had to shell out. I'm not advocating that, but I think it would be better than our current system.

But, isn't the insurer acting as a buffer for the patient in this case? They're obviously not doing a great job, but that $83K figure is a cost negotiated down by a large insurer. How do you think the price would compare if the individual patient had no one on their side setting the price, and is working with a doctor who's not telling her what the price is, while in the emergency room?

What price would it be if the health system was ran for the good of society rather than attempting to make a profit?

Health care is not and never will be a fair thing to have as a 'capitalist' venture imho .... the reasons are multiple:
* "Customers" often have no choice but to purchase items
* "Customers" have no real access to comparisons of prices easily, especially when a time critical decision is required.
* "Customers" have no knowledge in the areas involved and they're often hugely emotional decisions involving the well being of loved ones.
* "Customers" have no knowledge of the true cost or how badly they're being milked in any specific circumstance.

All of the above indicate why its ludicrous to have a 'for profit' health system (and don't get me started on what the Tory politicians are starting to do to the NHS in England) ...

Most individuals aren't going to be able to pay $83k for an antivenum. In an insurance-free country, hospitals just wouldn't get that from anyone. They'd get whatever the bankruptcy judge says they can get (probably pennies on the dollar). Might as well charge less to encourage more people to come to the hospital. The insurance company has the means to pay whatever. And people with insurance have a false sense of security that they'll be taken care of when they go to the hospital. The hospital could have charged $200k, they'd probably get it.

Though, if our government had a bigger role as a treatment cost provider (not as the provider itself or as a single payer deal, but just writing the checks), they'd probably be even worse at this, we see this with medicaid. Providers can just charge the government anything, they'll gleefully pay. Heck you can charge the government for services you didn't even provide, and get away with it 99% of the time.

The founder of a crappy, unhealthy pizza chain is against offering birth control? Kind of strange, isn't it?

Sometimes I hate when the media tries to report on the law. The Judge issued a PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. That means the law is suspended on Monaghan until a final ruling is handed down. In other words, the Judge hasn't yet ruled on the legality of the law requiring contraception to be provided for in health plans.

I was just thinking that too.

On this specific point we agree.

The devil is likely in the details ;)

Yay! Score one for the Constitution:

Federal judge rules surveillance provisions unconstitutional - Yahoo! News

Isn't that ruling from the notoriously nutjob federal district however? If so, I'd hold off on celebrating anything since they're so frequently overturned on appeal.

Hopefully the find this unconstitutional as well:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...92C0EH20130313

I just don't see Rubio in 2016, not sure about Paul. My bet is on Jeb with the family legacy.

Rand Paul wins CPAC straw poll; Rubio close second - First Read

WTH is a Ben Carson?

If Hillary runs, I'd guess younger guys like Rubio, Jindal, Ryan, and Scott Walker might wait it out.

I think a "seasoned" governor like Mike Pence (IND), Bob McDonnell (VA), Sam Brownback (KS), Susana Martinez (NM), or John Kasich (OH) could sort of sneak in and possibly win.

Kasich is probably a stretch to be in with the others, but looks good on paper (I've always thought he comes off badly when speaking).

He's an African-American M.D. from Maryland that gained some fame for giving a speech at a national prayer breakfast w/ Obama in attendance that was perceived as political by some. Talked about what was wrong with education and healthcare.

Carson spoke at my college's graduation a couple of years ago. He had an ego the size of Texas. Instead of giving a speech to the graduates, he gave a political speech about the importance of conservatism. Regardless of political views, that's a speech that should be less about the speaker and more about the listeners.

edit: But I will say the guy has a hell of an impressive resume as a doctor.

Hmm ... that probably explains my lack of recognition then. Stuff like the n.p.b. usually tends to glaze my eyes over really quick.

What a dildo. Would have been a good graduation for the graduates to get up and walk out of IMO. Regardless of what the politics of the speaker were BTW.