What is the top reason for the current US economic problem?

MoSurveyor said:

Sorry, you were showing gains in manufacturing, not just automation replacing workers. Since the gains in manufacturing were the only numbers shown in dollars I assumed - obviously incorrectly - that you would figure out my comment was about the amount of manufacturing, not the workers.

Your own chart (above) and your original chart (below) when adjusted for inflation shows manufacturing in America has been on the decline for decades.




There are many sites that will adjust for inflation, I'll let you pick your own. The differences are big enough it shouldn't matter which one you use as long as it's USD.
Here are the results from mine:

1975 $100.00 (bottom chart $1500)
1992 $261.12 (top chart $4.2)
2008 $395.90 (top chart $5.6 but would need to be $6.36 to break even compared to 1992, more for growth)
2009 $394.32 (bottom chart $3500 but would need to be $5915 to break even compared to 1975)

Click to expand...

Uhh, no it doesn't, it only shows a decline during the recession (dot com and most recent).
It has steadily grown, outside of recessions.

You must be reading another graph that wasn't here or you just made some numbers up.
The link I posted is manufacturing output, adjusted for inflation.
It even indicates so, at the bottom.
Plus there is a sourced link to an NPR pod cast, that talks about machines replacing workers.

Catawba said:

Hey Bill, Hope you and the family are doing well!

I looked at the congressional testimony, and I have to tell you I was about to be impressed...........until I did as you said and dug a little deeper. There was only one person that testified in that paper by the Hudson Institute. I wondered about the Hudson Institute as well because I had never heard of them, while I was very familiar with The American Journal of Medicine. Turns out that the Hudson Institute is an ultra conservative think tank and the lady speaking has a long association with ultra conservative groups, and the conservative Bush Administration.

The study by the AJM also passes the smell test better as I know in my own case that our health insurance, being self-employed, is almost unaffordable, so I can see where many that are not as well off as we are, would not be able to afford health insurance. Then, if they have some major medical problem they are screwed financially.

So, thanks, but I will have to go with the study by the American Journal of Medicine over the this lady at the Hudson Institute.


Take care my friend!

Click to expand...

We are doing well, thanks....
and you and yours?
You claim to be a liberal, let me guide you away from the left leaning dark side of politics, in the direction of the right leaning of the dark side, but not all the way, you need to stop in the middle, where we modern moderates live. We know that the truth does not exist without bias from either end of the bell cruve of politics, but in the middle.
Read both, listen to detractors, then use your intellect. I know you have some.....maybe not a lot to spare, but at least enough to see through a liberal who is pushing for Obamacare, and a conservative who is saying HELL NO WE DON'T WANT IT.
Each party has all the facts, but interpret them in their own ways. Who woulda thunk it? Self interest clouds our collective vision concerning what might be a good thing for us all, in the long run.

As for the cost of your insurance, I suggest shopping around...I had a short period of time where I was without employer provided insurance and age 60, when my Navy Reserve retirement and benefits kicked in. With a short history of colon cancer in the family, my father, and 3 of his kids having had precancerous polyps removed, I got a major medical policy for pretty cheap. It was just for me, of course, as my wife had her coverage where she worked. Adding me to her plan would have been very expensive, so I went to BCBS. My policy covered annual physical exam plus related lab work completely, no copay or deductible....but any actuall illness would have cost me $5K before they started paying.
I know people who willingly pay $1K per month for a policy with no copay, no deductible....even after being shown the expense is not needed. My son, works same school district my wife retired from, has his wife and 3 kids on a major medical policy for about $450 per month, $1500 deductible and no copay, then all is paid at 100%, and the oldest child is costing the insurance company plenty. She is the one with the brain tumors, the original or first one is inoperable, the new one was major surgery. Quarterly MRI exams are needed, and are expensive.
And remember, a salesman doesn't make much money selling you what you want or need, unless he has it.
So, most of the time, expect the salesman to steer you to what he has in stock, not what is best for you.

Harry Guerrilla said:

Uhh, no it doesn't, it only shows a decline during the recession (dot com and most recent).
It has steadily grown, outside of recessions.

You must be reading another graph that wasn't here or you just made some numbers up.
The link I posted is manufacturing output, adjusted for inflation.
It even indicates so, at the bottom.
Plus there is a sourced link to an NPR pod cast, that talks about machines replacing workers.

Click to expand...

I hunted down the article that went with the first graph and, yes, it's adjusted. When I asked earlier if the first graph was inflation adjusted I was ignored. Considering what that usually means around here you'll forgive me if I assumed it wasn't.


I never argued that American manufacturing wasn't being automated. To me that's obvious. I remember taking a tour of the Ford plant here when I was young. They had just installed the first "robots" and I'll never forget that image. Back then automation - really, computer control of any kind - was new.

MoSurveyor said:

As for the rest - why don't you look up mortality rates and life expectancy in various countries including the US? Go see where we fit into those categories. I'll give you a hint: Even with our outrageous health care costs we are far from being #1 in either category.

Click to expand...

I know generally how we fit. But there are also other factors that affect both the life expectancy rates and mortality rates (including infant).

What are the break downs by ethnicity for these factors?

How many of these countries even have anything close to the racial diversity that we have?

What are the obesity rates for these countries?
Alcoholism?
Diabities?
Drug use?
Accident rates?
High colesterol?
Heart desease?
cancer?

Our doctors and medical care services do a great job, witness the fact that we actually have a life expectency that high when we are the worlds best at trying the destroy ourselves.

Somerville said:

It has to be emphasised, strongly, that those "administrative costs" are found in the private health insurance companies and not in some "massively swollen federal bureaucracy", no matter how much those on the right argue that 'business always does it better'

Click to expand...

Interesting thing I found while looking up information on this. First, what is being considered Administrative costs. I refer to as processing and filing of the paper work necessary for payments to be made, all the reports I scanned or read through list a lot more as counting as "Administrative", including adding profit to the term. In addition, while some want to blame private insurance companies, the government contracts some "administrative" services to private insurance companies, so it becomes unclear as to just how much Medicare, and none of them even mentioned Medicaid, costs are and some of the costs that should belong to Medicare/Medicaid get reported as costs inposed by insurance companies. Are there problems, sure, but I for one do not believe that UHC is the answer.

Before all the "issues" of unequal care and care for the uninsured rose up, the uninsured were treated at volunteer hospitals, free clinic and community hospitals. If we went back to such a model, would the people using these facilities receive the same level of care as the privately insured or access to technologies enjoyed by the privately insured, no. Would the cost of insurance become more affordable to more Americans, yes. The government and other agency simply will not fund at the levels required. Neither will UHC. UHC cannot bring the highest level to all, it can only bring all to the lowest level the government is willing to fund.

Currently there is no way to measure "business always does it better" because the equation has become unbalanced with government involvement and the inclusion of the uninsured into the whole equation. The only way to compare "massively swollen federal bureaucracy" vs "business always does it better" would be to seperate the two so that we have clear data for each. The current mixing makes the data unclear. For one thing, in all of the arguing about "massively swollen federal bureaucracy" vs "business always does it better", one side of the arguement doesn't want to take into account all the costs of care for the uninsured when considering and arguing that there is not "massively swollen federal bureaucracy."

MoSurveyor said:

I hunted down the article that went with the first graph and, yes, it's adjusted. When I asked earlier if the first graph was inflation adjusted I was ignored. Considering what that usually means around here you'll forgive me if I assumed it wasn't.


I never argued that American manufacturing wasn't being automated. To me that's obvious. I remember taking a tour of the Ford plant here when I was young. They had just installed the first "robots" and I'll never forget that image. Back then automation - really, computer control of any kind - was new.

Click to expand...

I couldn't find any notation about the first one being inflation adjusted, so I found a second that was.
I was trying to go with your standards.

Some robots really suck (automated painting and inter plant delivery robots I've seen), others not so much.

DVSentinel said:

What are the break downs by ethnicity for these factors?

How many of these countries even have anything close to the racial diversity that we have?

Click to expand...

You're going to use the race card here? Really? :roll:


As for the other problems we have, you seem to be trying to separate physical and psychological health and I'm not sure that's appropriate. Last time I checked alcoholism and drug abuse were medical issues. Other things listed are obviously medical issues.

If you'd like to factor in our traffic accidents I can accept that - have at it and be sure to factor them in for other countries as well. I think you'll find not much will change.

Hey, where's the 'the rest of the global economy is just as screwed' option, or for that matter the 'American government is completely paralysed' one?

Stagnant wages, the tempering of money velocity, debt at the personal level, and ongoing layoffs at the state and local level.

Harry Guerrilla said:

I couldn't find any notation about the first one being inflation adjusted, so I found a second that was.
I was trying to go with your standards.

Some robots really suck (automated painting and inter plant delivery robots I've seen), others not so much.

Click to expand...

An interesting tid-bit I found while wandering around in this field. It might explain why people think they way they do.

Manufacturing’s Declining Share of GDP

MoSurveyor said:

You're going to use the race card here? Really?

Click to expand...

Absolutely, there are inherent differences between ethnicities. Blacks, for example, have much higher instances of Hypertension. Comparisons from what are essentially mono-ethnic countries vs diverse-ethnic do need to factor those in.

Here is some data on the US broken down by race. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0118.pdf

As you can see from the charts there, some races have different health concerns. Check out Alzheimers, 6th leading cause of death in whites, but drops to 14th for blacks, 13 for Native Americans, 10 for Asians and 12 for hispanics. Diabetes kills at much higher rates in Native Americans and Blacks than in whites and Asians or Hispanics. Cancer is the leading cause of death for Asians, but Heart Desease for everyone else, and the percent of death to cancer is highest amongst Asians and lowest amongst Native Americans.

Any healthcares system that only has to focus on one race does not have to meet the challenges of a multi-racial soceity.

DVSentinel said:

Absolutely, there are inherent differences between ethnicities. Blacks, for example, have much higher instances of Hypertension. Comparisons from what are essentially mono-ethnic countries vs diverse-ethnic do need to factor those in.

Here is some data on the US broken down by race. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0118.pdf

As you can see from the charts there, some races have different health concerns. Check out Alzheimers, 6th leading cause of death in whites, but drops to 14th for blacks, 13 for Native Americans, 10 for Asians and 12 for hispanics. Diabetes kills at much higher rates in Native Americans and Blacks than in whites and Asians or Hispanics. Cancer is the leading cause of death for Asians, but Heart Desease for everyone else, and the percent of death to cancer is highest amongst Asians and lowest amongst Native Americans.

Any healthcares system that only has to focus on one race does not have to meet the challenges of a multi-racial soceity.

Click to expand...

That is the lamest excuse I've seen yet for paying more to get worse health care.

UtahBill said:

We are doing well, thanks....
and you and yours?
You claim to be a liberal, let me guide you away from the left leaning dark side of politics, in the direction of the right leaning of the dark side, but not all the way, you need to stop in the middle, where we modern moderates live. We know that the truth does not exist without bias from either end of the bell cruve of politics, but in the middle.
Read both, listen to detractors, then use your intellect.

Click to expand...

That's what I did. We are doing well thanks!

As for the cost of your insurance, I suggest shopping around...I had a short period of time where I was without employer provided insurance and age 60, when my Navy Reserve retirement and benefits kicked in. With a short history of colon cancer in the family, my father, and 3 of his kids having had precancerous polyps removed, I got a major medical policy for pretty cheap. It was just for me, of course, as my wife had her coverage where she worked. Adding me to her plan would have been very expensive, so I went to BCBS. My policy covered annual physical exam plus related lab work completely, no copay or deductible....but any actuall illness would have cost me $5K before they started paying.
I know people who willingly pay $1K per month for a policy with no copay, no deductible....even after being shown the expense is not needed. My son, works same school district my wife retired from, has his wife and 3 kids on a major medical policy for about $450 per month, $1500 deductible and no copay, then all is paid at 100%, and the oldest child is costing the insurance company plenty. She is the one with the brain tumors, the original or first one is inoperable, the new one was major surgery. Quarterly MRI exams are needed, and are expensive.
And remember, a salesman doesn't make much money selling you what you want or need, unless he has it.
So, most of the time, expect the salesman to steer you to what he has in stock, not what is best for you.

Click to expand...

I have shopped around and switched to a lower cost provider only to have 3 rate increases over the next two years that put me back to where I was. It makes no sense to keep our antiquated health care system that due to overhead and administration costs, has become unaffordable for a large segment of our population. Canada, when they upgraded to UHC found that the overhead/administrative cost by Blue Cross and Blue Shield in just one state here, was enough to run the health care system in their whole country.

Smeagol said:

It's probably a a combination of factors, but what would you say is the primary reason for the US economic problems?

A personallly I attribute the greater weight of our situation on cheap overseas labor competing with relative high income American incomes needed due to our higher cost of living that has reached a peak in 2012. You can't buy a nice home in America for $20,000. You can in Mumbai. ...

Click to expand...

We just purchased a home in Phoenix for $92,111 (hoa fee 500/yr). 1543 sq ft, 3 br 2 bath, tile roof, large two car garage, clean water, heat pump, huge maintained park, small kids park, paved roads w/ sidewalks detached, low crime, quality schools, etc. I can't find out if you actually can buy that in Mumbai for anything like $20 k. Please help me with someting in Mumbai actually described in some detail.

MoSurveyor said:

That is the lamest excuse I've seen yet for paying more to get worse health care.

Click to expand...

Apparently you got lost following the track. That post is related to variations in "statistics" that some want to use to prove their theory of how others have better healthcare. They want to take statistics like life expentancy and just use it as a measure of how good a healthcare system is without taking into account what causes might actually cause a difference in the statistics.

Most of my life, I have had Government run healthcare, Military doctors and now VA. On a few rare occasion, I was able to get care outside of these government run systems and difference in care provided is tremendous. I would not want to force a government run system on anybody. Does our healthcare cost more, sure, but I have seen the differences and we get a lot more. But unless people actually have experienced that difference or are willing to take into account all factors related to statistics that they see as proving the opposite, they cannot ever see that.

Harry Guerrilla said:

A lot of people snub their noses at mobile homes, but we used to rent a double wide, on 40 acres, for $500 a month.
Functionally it's just like a house.

Click to expand...

I think it's because trailer parks can be the rural version of the ghetto

Dr. Chuckles said:

I think it's because trailer parks can be the rural version of the ghetto

Click to expand...

I think you are right in a way. There is nothing wrong with living in a trailer if your family is not too big. Its a way for many to start out, or if that is all they can afford. But many rural trailer parks are neglected by the owner of the parks and trailers and often located in areas prone to flooding. This is common method of re-roofing a trailer in my part of the country.



Edit: Looks like this one has had a window replacement as well!

DVSentinel said:

Apparently you got lost following the track. That post is related to variations in "statistics" that some want to use to prove their theory of how others have better healthcare. They want to take statistics like life expentancy and just use it as a measure of how good a healthcare system is without taking into account what causes might actually cause a difference in the statistics.

Click to expand...

There was no track to follow because you posted no other country's numbers for comparison.

DVSentinel said:

Most of my life, I have had Government run healthcare, Military doctors and now VA. On a few rare occasion, I was able to get care outside of these government run systems and difference in care provided is tremendous. I would not want to force a government run system on anybody. Does our healthcare cost more, sure, but I have seen the differences and we get a lot more. But unless people actually have experienced that difference or are willing to take into account all factors related to statistics that they see as proving the opposite, they cannot ever see that.

Click to expand...

Thank you for showing us the REAL reason you're against UHC.

Catawba said:

I think you are right in a way. There is nothing wrong with living in a trailer if your family is not too big. Its a way for many to start out, or if that is all they can afford. But many rural trailer parks are neglected by the owner of the parks and trailers and often located in areas prone to flooding. This is common method of re-roofing a trailer in my part of the country.

Edit: Looks like this one has had a window replacement as well!

Click to expand...

Guard Kitty? looks mean tempered....

UtahBill said:

Guard Kitty? looks mean tempered....

Click to expand...

When someone has it all, they need protection of their property! LOL!

Londoner said:

Hey, where's the 'the rest of the global economy is just as screwed' option, or for that matter the 'American government is completely paralysed' one?

Click to expand...

The same thing that's happening in America is happening in Europe, the Globalist traitors are sending all the good paying jobs to corrupt/communist 3rd world countries.

Matt Foley said:

The same thing that's happening in America is happening in Europe, the Globalist traitors are sending all the good paying jobs to corrupt/communist 3rd world countries.

Click to expand...

EXACTLY.... wait... no... that's not what I was saying at all.

Dr. Chuckles said:

I think it's because trailer parks can be the rural version of the ghetto

Click to expand...

That's true, but a trailer in and of itself, is not the equivalent of a ghetto.
It's only when you cram a bunch of them together and they aren't kept up with.

Matt Foley said:

The same thing that's happening in America is happening in Europe, the Globalist traitors are sending all the good paying jobs to corrupt/communist 3rd world countries.

Click to expand...

Where did this globalization start?

OK, don't really know this one. But it was a long, long time ago.

Who benefitted the most by it for a longtime but now preaches hatred of it because it is nolonger benefitting them?

US and Europe

Who parked battleships in Tokyo bay and forced the Japanese to enter the global market?

The US.

What nation has never had an isolationist economy and was once undisbuted champion in global markets (some would say still is)?

The US.

What nation leveraged political and social changes worldwide by using the global markets and is now the oldest or second oldest (Iceland has a possible claim to oldest) government in existance on Earth today?

Again, The US. All other governments, with the possible exception of Iceland, have changed forms of government since the American Revolution. However some will argue that in the 1930s, the US changed from a representative democracy to a social democracy.

MoSurveyor said:

Thank you for showing us the REAL reason you're against UHC.

Click to expand...

Your welcome. Now you know that I am not arguing from any effect it would have on me personally. Remaining with the old way, Obamacare or UHC, none of it changes anything for me. Most of my income comes from disability and isn't taxable, so none of it will even affect my Taxes very much.