Reply With Quote
Many docs are already corporate owned providers; get paid by a salary.
Buddy of mine is a perinatologist; works for a corp. with over 1,200 employees
Salary = 600K
He left his job as an airforce (govt.) doc where his salary was 1/5 that.
lol. I'll wait for you to ask the next guy who gets his job cut. I'm sure he'll be happy that healthcare for everybody else got cheaper.
your "conservative confirmation biases".
Many docs are already corporate owned providers; get paid by a salary.
Buddy of mine is a perinatologist; works for a corp. with over 1,200 employees
Salary = 600K
He left his job as an airforce (govt.) doc where his salary was 1/5 that.
In RG's defense he never said the guy cut would be happy.lol. I'll wait for you to ask the next guy who gets his job cut. I'm sure he'll be happy that healthcare for everybody else got cheaper.
It sucks, but this happens all the time. Entire factories replaced by robots, and people laid off. People love their $150 Nexus phone, but nobody is buying the $500 human-made version.
Or the Made in USA version.
The guy that get's his job cut is not going to be offset by cheaper healthcare.
There's no Made in USA version. Google's fiduciary duty is to it's shareholders, not the good ol' USA.
When there is a mass produced handmade phone, I'll eat your shorts.
That doesn't even make sense.
what?
RG's point was that if you can increase efficiency, job losses are part of that. The work the person was doing was either replaced by a machine or no longer needed.
Now, we can discuss whether the savings from that salary no longer being there gets passed on to consumers or goes to make somebody's bottom line fatter, but that's a different story altogether.
We just hired 120 this month, and we pay for our employees health care already... If some employers are going to be s about it, there are plenty others who will be willing to pick the best from those companies and take care of them.
I even remember when the phone company owned them all and you rented them from them.
No Sherlock. No wonder our standard of living keeps dropping.
you really have a big confusion with what "standard of living" means... Expensive cellphones don't increase your standard of living, they actually decrease it.
Not a phone, but a google product made in the USA did come out this year.
Too bad it was colossally stupid and is no longer being sold despite being introduced 4 months ago.
That's great, EN. Now factor in unemployment and other safety net costs, and get back to me with a bottom line on the savings.what?
RG's point was that if you can increase efficiency, job losses are part of that. The work the person was doing was either replaced by a machine or no longer needed.
Now, we can discuss whether the savings from that salary no longer being there gets passed on to consumers or goes to make somebody's bottom line fatter, but that's a different story altogether.
I don't see any studies that factor this in....just talking points about how if we reduce overhead, everybody wins. Offsets!
lol I can still remember when Southwestern Bell had store fronts where you could look at display models and make a purchase.
I even remember when the phone company owned them all and you rented them from them.
One of your problems is seeing things in a static rather than dynamic fashion. Our standard of living should be increasing, but is level. Just because existing technology gets cheaper doesn't mean . Like I said, it would take too long to elaborate, but we have a false sense of the standard of living. Look at housing, cars, and food prices vs. income in our present day vs. the past. Stop thinking like a child, marveling at the new toys that come out all the time.
Seriously dude? My companies smart phones have increased productivity dramatically which increases everyone's standard of living.
OK, fess up now...you got the Princess, didn't you?
Sure Teysha, but then the question is: does government needs to avoid long term efficiency improvements and cost cutting in order to avoid those other temporary associated costs?
Then again, we're discussing government efficiency and cost cutting, which is largely an oxymoron, tbh
And for you youngsters:
The question wasn't if cellphones increase the standard of living. The question is if expensive cellphones increase the standard of living.
If you can pay $150 or $500 for the same exact cellphone, which price point gives you the better "standard of living"? Same exact phone.
Please don't try to convince us how efficient government is.Sure Teysha, but then the question is: does government needs to avoid long term efficiency improvements and cost cutting in order to avoid those other temporary associated costs?
Then again, we're discussing government efficiency and cost cutting, which is largely an oxymoron, tbh
If they had just mailed the mother ers a check instead of having all those ed up programs they wouldn't be in poverty..."According to the Census’s American Community Survey, the number of households with incomes below the poverty line in 2011 was 16,807,795," the Senate Budget Committee notes. "If you divide total federal and state spending by the number of households with incomes below the poverty line, the average spending per household in poverty was $61,194 in 2011."
I remember memorizing friends' and family's telephone numbers when I was kid. Now I can barely remember my mom's.
Actually, my problem is trying to have a discussion about incredibly basic economy concepts with you.
I should know better than that.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
