Slashdot Mirror


The Engine of US Jobs

eberta writes, "BusinessWeek has an interesting take on the US job situation, What's Really Propping Up The Economy. I think many of us have felt the US tech job market was stagnant and this article has insights into why this economy is so hot, yet not from our perspective. The spoiler is the business of health care — which will come as no surprise to anybody who has looked through the help wanted section lately. BusinessWeek has some opinions on how IT should play a bigger role in the health care industry."

58 of 324 comments (clear)

  1. Time For All Those Health Nazis To Shut Up! by montyzooooma · · Score: 4, Funny

    Quit your griping about smoking, lack of exercise and junk food! It's us wheezing lard butts that are keeping America working.

    1. Re:Time For All Those Health Nazis To Shut Up! by kfg · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's us wheezing lard butts that are keeping America working.

      Yeah, ok, but could you knock off the popping out of your little holes, grabbing us and eating us bit? It's annoying.

      KFG

  2. What's Really ... by Andy+Gardner · · Score: 3, Informative

    Public subsidies through the Pentagon system.

  3. Invisible Job Benefits by resistant · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's been pointed out before that while wages may be stagnant in many industries, invisible benefits such as health care (from employer insurance) have been increasing in value. This boom in health care employment is the visible part of that economic fact.

    --
    A truly excellent pizza parlor is a delight unto the heavens. Treasure the sauce and the toppings!
    1. Re:Invisible Job Benefits by Kamineko · · Score: 2, Funny
      Damn you! I work my ass off over here in the UK, and I don't get any invisibility benefits!


      *waves hand in front of you*


      Look! Visisble!


      *grumble* ...lucky bastard.

    2. Re:Invisible Job Benefits by clem · · Score: 3, Funny

      On the Internet, no one knows you're opaque.

      --
      Your courageous and selfless spelling corrections have made me a better person.
    3. Re:Invisible Job Benefits by nebula169 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Employers are more frequently putting the cost of health care on the employees now...so as the cost of health care increases, companies transfer that cost directly to the ones that want it. Wage stagnation is still an issue.

  4. Who pays the bills? by arkhan_jg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As they touch on in the article, as more and more money is spent in the healthcare sector, the cost of insurance will continue to rise, and thus put even greater stress on what little social healthcare provision there is. As the people working in healthcare rises, the salary bill rises, and somebody has to pay it; and it'll either be government funding (research funding etc) and higher charges for the users.

    Speaking as a non-american, it's already one of the great ironies of the 'great american economy' - increasing numbers of people will end up working in the healthcare industry, but won't be able to afford to use it for themselves or their families. Yet giving everyone affordable access to healthcare, increasing productivity, is decried as socialist, while letting people be crippled by the financial burden of a major illness is true-blue American. Lovely.

    --
    Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
    1. Re:Who pays the bills? by Heir+Of+The+Mess · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Don't worry about American healthcare workers not being able to afford health care, many of them are taking "Medical Holidays" to places in Asia where they can get cheap operations. Yes many years ago that might have been a bit risky, but these days in places like Taiwan, American patients can get first class treatment at 1/10th of the price and it's probably safer than being treated by overworked American medical staff.

      Check out articles found by google http://www.google.com/search?num=50&complete=1&hl= en&lr=&safe=off&q=medical+tourism+taiwan/

      BTW the article missed out Lawyers from the groups that will benefit.

      --
      Australian running a company that does C# / C++ / Java / SQL / Python / Mathematica
    2. Re:Who pays the bills? by dfenstrate · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As they touch on in the article, as more and more money is spent in the healthcare sector, the cost of insurance will continue to rise.
      A huge problem in healthcare is that the decision to pay is largely seperated from the decision to use services. This is true wether it's an insurance company you're dealing with, or a government payer.

      When you go see a doctor for any old cold, bruise, cracked rib, or any number of certain things, the doc is gonna tell you the same thing your grandma would have: you just have to suffer through it. Since those on insurance or socialized healthcare don't have to pay the doctor much if anything, they don't weigh their appraisal of the injury against the doctor's price of services.

      They just use the services. However, when you do this, you increase the demand for a doctor's service, and like any industry, this leads to an increase in price.

      Healthcare is not a right, it's an industry, subject to the same laws of supply (but not demand, as i've explained) as any other.

      To provide healthcare, you need:
      1. Highly educated people at all levels
      2. Constant research into new methods and devices
      3. A manufacturing arm that requires raw materials, production and distribution.
      4. Expensive endpoints to deliver services and goods to the consumer.

      If you take those four points abstracted, that describes a great many industries. Healthcare is just another industry, and the emotional attachment to good health is the only thing that makes it seem different.

      Emotions do not change the laws of supply and demand.

      My solution? Well, if I was self-employed, I'd go with a catastrophic health insurance plan- one were the yearly deductable is a hard $3000-5000. Until I reach that limit, I would pay everything. Over it, insurance pays. I'd just have to be sure to have enough saved money on hand to cover the deductable. Such a plan (if widely participated in) is likely to be much cheaper than the standard ones you see around.

      Oh, and another thing about insurance: Any successful health insurance plan depends on the participation & payment of young single men to stay afloat. We don't use services unless we have to, for the most part, and hence our payments can go to larger consumers of healthcare- ie men with children, women, etc. (Don't call what's true sexist, btw.)

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    3. Re:Who pays the bills? by AlHunt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > increasing productivity, is decried as socialist, while letting people be crippled by the >financial burden of a major illness is true-blue American

      Or dying because they can't afford "health care".

      The problem is that health care does not conform to the usual supply/demand model and is not effected by market forces - in fact, it's already rather socialist. Everybody buys "coverage" for thousands per year, while many fortunate people have minimal needs (but buy coverage "just in case", and wisely so) and thus support the cost to treat those who have chronic/costly problems.

      In my neck of the woods, it'll cost you in excess of $100 to see a doctor for a "brief visit" if you're paying out of pocket ($115.00 to be exact). I don't care what kind of justification is offered, there is no way it's "worth" $500/hr to have your blood pressure checked and have them listen to your lungs.

      The biggest problem in health care today is that providers think the insurance companies are their customers and the patients are just a means to get another check from the insurance company. The opposite is true - the insurance co is simply a conduit to transfer wealth from the patient to the doctors office.

      An outgrowth of all this is the snotty, imperious attitude prevalent among the staff at most doctors offices.

      Al

      --
      1 in 4 Maine children in struggle with hunger.
  5. Questionable basis by spindizzy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    From the start I'm inclined to believe the article is flawed from a statistical perspecitve. Where they quote the relevant unemployment rates of Germany and France in comparison to the US they do so without mention that the European countries use a measure which would see the US figure at over 12% (They count the underemployed as unemployed, so if you're a coder working a few hours flipping burgers you show up as unemployed).

    That said with an aging population health care will continue to be a growing employer at all levels.

    --
    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
    1. Re:Questionable basis by cmorriss · · Score: 3, Informative
      one is only listed as unemployed in the US, when one is drawing unemployment benefits.

      This is often stated as the way the unemployment rate is determined, but it is completely wrong.

      The method by which the U.S. goverment determines the unemployment rate is far more accurate than that. They do a survey every month of 60,000 households collecting various data including employment status. It's really quite detailed and the methodology seems to be pretty good.

      --
      10 minutes working on a sig. What a waste.
    2. Re:Questionable basis by HuguesT · · Score: 2, Informative
      Responding to AC:


      Wow. Do they send people under the bridges to the cardbox homes where the now homeless, longer unemployed have moved without their phones?


      I'm not sure that a bridge counts as a household, probably not. In any one counts as unemployed only if one is actively looking for work.
    3. Re:Questionable basis by johanw · · Score: 2, Informative

      Who told you that? I'm from Europe (The Netherlands) and there is of course some critic on counting measures (here, many who are officially unfit for labour and get government pay were in reality dumped by large corporations when the economy was bad), but you count as worting when you work over X hours a week (don't know the exact number for X). If you have a PhD in CS but are cleaning dishes 40 hours a week you count as working.

  6. "hot" economy by Scudsucker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The economy may be "hot" with jobs, the problem is that it's not hot with *well paying jobs*. Between the IT bubble bursting, offshoring, the decline of unions, and stagnant minimum wage, it's not exactly the garden of opportunity in the U.S. And before I get some elitist comment like "there are good jobs out there, you just have to get off your lazy butt and look", yes I know there are good jobs, there just aren't many to go around, no matter how good a worker you are.

    1. Re:"hot" economy by kfg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The economy may be "hot" with jobs, the problem is that it's not hot with *well paying jobs*

      The more you own, The more you earn
      The less you pay, on tax returns
      But if you're poor, no need to frown
      Just trust in Reagan, wait for trickle down

      The millionaires, can pay no tax
      it's just the tips they give their waiters that get axed
      But let the poor, keep what they've got
      There'll be more jobs for maids and butlers and whatnot

      - Terry Phelan

      KFG

  7. Broken window fallacy again by Peter+Cooper · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's another case of the broken window economic fallacy. If more people receiving health care is what's helping keep the economy afloat, that's not a good thing. The money wasted on $100 boxes of Kleenex and $2000 short ambulance rides (don't laugh, it's the truth!) is money that couldn't have been spent elsewhere on better things.

    Further:

    Despite the splashy success of companies such as Google (GOOG ) and Yahoo! (YHOO ), businesses at the core of the information economy -- software, semiconductors, telecom, and the whole gamut of Web companies -- have lost more than 1.1 million jobs in the past five years.

    Isn't this a good thing generally? These people are being displaced to do other, more important work. Information technology should, in general, not be a boom industry anymore. The tools are becoming good enough to displace human labor. Let more software and computers do work that people in IT used to do, and let them go work in the health care industry where mechanization has less benefit or opportunity.

  8. What if... by tbo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... we reach a point where the health care services the population reasonably wants exceed the ability of the population as a whole to pay? What if this is happening now? The article hints at this--it is pointed out that the US trade deficit might be viewed as us borrowing foreign money to fund our collective health care. Perhaps some of this spending is currently just due to low efficiency of the health care system, but it's quite possible we could fix that, and, in 10 years, increases in costs would put us back where we are now.

    Factors contributing to rising demand for health care:

    1) Aging population. Even in the US, which has one of the highest birth rates of any western country, the population as a whole is getting older. With the baby boomers about to retire, this is going to hit us hard and fast.

    2) Obesity and other dietary/behavioral risk factors. There's been a bit of evidence that the negative consequences of obesity were overblown, but it's still bad news.

    3) The most subtle and nefarious of all: advances in medicine. There's not really any demand for drugs that haven't been discovered yet, or surgeries that can't yet be performed successfully.

    This last point is the scariest of all. Suppose we developed a way to give people an extra 10 years of life, but it cost a million dollar per person. We simply couldn't afford to provide it for everyone. What do we do? The American solution is to offer the procedure to anyone who can pay for it. The Canadian way would be to have a 90-year wait list so most people died before they could get the procedure. Other countries would perhaps find other ways of rationing health care, but the point is that the inevitable consequence would be rationed health care. Maybe the market would do the rationing, maybe the government would, maybe the Grim Reaper would, but rationing there would be.

    So, what do people think? Obviously, we should try to make health care more efficient, but, if it's too expensive to give everyone full access, how do we sort things out?

    1. Re:What if... by nospam007 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >...So, what do people think? Obviously, we should try to make health care more efficient, but, if it's too expensive to give everyone full access, how do we sort things out?
      --
      What US dcctors have pay for malpractice insurance alone is enough to pay for multiple doctors in other countries.
      Not to mention that their hospitals don't have to pay for a legal department etc.

    2. Re:What if... by HuguesT · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Hi,


      Suppose we developed a way to give people an extra 10 years of life, but it cost a million dollar per person. We simply couldn't afford to provide it for everyone. What do we do?


      These sort of what-if scenarios don't really advance the debate :

      1. It's never that simple ;
      2. There are real-life examples of broadly similar scenarios, like organ transplants, early access to CAT scanners or costly cancer treatments, so why not discuss them instead of your fictionnal scenario ?
      3. In the real-life scenarios, in the US people with good insurance or wealth indeed were able to get the treatment earlier, but eventually the associated costs went down and more people were eventually able to avail themselves to the new treatment ;
      4. In other countries with a more egalitarian approach to health care, this problem was indeed solved with priority queues, and indeed some people did die before access to the treatment/diagnosis facility.


      It's called progress. My impression is that if your fictionnal scenario came up, it would not necessarily take a long time for the cost to come down dramatically, and as evidence I offer pretty much every treatment or diagnostic method ever designed. Pretty much no matter where you stand in the wealth scale or where you live, access to health care has improved. Hopefully this trend will continue in the future.
  9. One phrase: Jobless Recovery by sethstorm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That all but explains what's keeping things going, with supposedly good numbers. Add the gutting of the Middle-class, the creation of an area that has become low-income, low opportunity for the majority - where populist measures(read: universally non-competitive admissions/fully paid financing to any university in exchange for globalization) may end up being quite necessary to fix a major problem. That problem being
    the non-existence of the signs of a good economy - but all the signs of one being dismantled with no workable revitalization plan for the displaced.

    (To preempt some people - this excludes Honda, Toyota, and the other "Foreign Manufactured, US Assembled" manufacturers if you're going to talk about them contributing anything useful)

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  10. But healthcare doesn't make value..... by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 5, Interesting
    A really strong economy is built on building value. That is, some function is performed that creates value and thereby money(makes stuff, sells services or stuff overseas and brings in money).

    Healthcare does not really build value. Nothing has been made because Aunty Tilly got a $20,000 bypass instead of a $5 bottle of asprin.

    In the way economists measure things, the Exxon-Valdez disaster was a huge economic success.

    One thing that really drives up the GDP is esculating housing costs. When a $100k house's value increases to $300k this is seen as a $200k increase in the economy.... but this is just bullshit, no value has been created. Sure it can stimulate the economy because Aunt Tilly can now take a $20k loan against her house and get a bypass and this trickles into the economy. Or Joe Sixpack might buy a new Chevvy... However, you should really see this as what it is: hyper inflation in housing prices.

    If the "value" of a loaf of bread increases from $1 to $5, then that is seen as inflation, not growth. When a house goes from $100k to $300k this should be seen as inflation too.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:But healthcare doesn't make value..... by ultranova · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A really strong economy is built on building value. That is, some function is performed that creates value and thereby money(makes stuff, sells services or stuff overseas and brings in money).

      No, a really strong economy is both self-sufficient and self-sustaining. In other words, in order to have a really strong economy, you must depend on neither exports nor imports. If you depend on foreign trade, your economy could collapse because of events in foreign lands, which you can't control (I'm assuming that those are sovereign countries, not US free trade partners).

      Healthcare does not really build value. Nothing has been made because Aunty Tilly got a $20,000 bypass instead of a $5 bottle of asprin.

      Nothing has been made because Aunty Tilly got a massage or haircut either. Healthcare is a service industry, and if selling services is a valid business model, then healthcare is a valid business model.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    2. Re:But healthcare doesn't make value..... by hey! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you depend on foreign trade, your economy could collapse because of events in foreign lands, which you can't control (I'm assuming that those are sovereign countries, not US free trade partners)

      I think Canada will be surprised to learn that they gave up their sovereignty when they joined NAFTA.

      I think what you saying would be better said this way: economic dependence on politically or socially unstable countries (e.g. Saudi Arabia, or China) is a source of economic insecurity.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:But healthcare doesn't make value..... by Not_Wiggins · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, a really strong economy is both self-sufficient and self-sustaining. In other words, in order to have a really strong economy, you must depend on neither exports nor imports. If you depend on foreign trade, your economy could collapse because of events in foreign lands, which you can't control (I'm assuming that those are sovereign countries, not US free trade partners).

      That's not true.

      A strong economy can be had with trade if the two nations have comparative advantage in trade.
      In real life there's rare examples of it existing only between two countries (usually more are involved), but it is an essential concept given that 28% of the global GDP was from exports.

      Restricting trade between countries (so there are no imports/exports) would only affect pricing/availability of goods within a country. For example, if you were unfortunate enough to live in a country without a rich oil supply, then all sorts of products that are created from that supply would either be extremely expensive or non-existant (plastics, fuel, etc).

      And even if you were to restrice trade to "free trade partners" (as you reference), that doesn't guarantee that the trade won't negatively affect an economy either. Free trade only refers to allowing products to flow without tariffs; it doesn't stop one country from dumping products into another, thus artificially lowering the price of those goods to drive the foreign industry into the ground.

      --
      Diplomacy is the art of saying, "Nice doggie!" until you can find a rock.
    4. Re:But healthcare doesn't make value..... by ElephanTS · · Score: 2, Informative

      The figures I've seen say that the majority of new jobs in the last 5 years have been created in the real estate market driven by enormous inflation of house prices. I'm not American but as similar thing has happened in the UK where I live - about 65% of the UK economy is based on the housing market. If this market stops growing (and it looks like it has now in the US) bad things are in store for the economy. Especially given the 'cash point on everyone's lawn' will stop working.

      --
      spoonerize "magic trackpad"
    5. Re:But healthcare doesn't make value..... by Gotebe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >Healthcare is a service industry, and if selling services is a valid business model, then healthcare is a valid business model.

      I am not convinced... It is OK if healthcare is being used to "maintain" people (whose workforce is being used then to add value). Currently, it's more about "fixing" people, so it's in the land of the "broken window" fallacy.

    6. Re:But healthcare doesn't make value..... by intnsred · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your disagreement stems from your arbitrary belief the GDP wasn't bullshit in the first place.

      Many people think the GDP or GNP is a bogus, crude measure of economic health. There are a number of other measures which address the G?P's shortcomings. (The UN's "Human Development Index" (HDI) is probably the best known.)

      As Robert Kennedy said in 1968:

      Our gross national product -- if we should judge America by that -- counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for those who break them. It counts the destruction of our redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and the cost of a nuclear warhead, and armored cars for police who fight riots in our streets. It counts Whitman's rifle and Speck's knife, and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children. Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it tells us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans.

    7. Re:But healthcare doesn't make value..... by melvin+xavier · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Healthcare does not really build value. Nothing has been made because Aunty Tilly got a $20,000 bypass instead of a $5 bottle of asprin.

      Nothing has been made because Aunty Tilly got a massage or haircut either. Healthcare is a service industry, and if selling services is a valid business model, then healthcare is a valid business model.

      Healthcare doesn't build value, it preserves value. Healthcare is one of the best investiments in workers. If you have ailing workers, their productivity is lowered by far. Do you work as well when you're running a high fever? Or does it take you longer to do less? Aunt Tilly's $20,000 bypass saved her life. If Aunt Tilly's $20,000 bypass allows her to continue in specialized, highly-skilled labor, it's by far the economically correct choice to give it to her. Maybe that $20 K could have been spent on cars or toys or gadgets, but if that money keeps a productive worker producing, it's not a bad usage of money (and in fact is a very good usage of money). Think of it as maintanence on our machines. Maybe getting your car serviced doesn't produce any tangible good, but it sure saves a lot down the road when your car functions in 5 years instead of just dying on the highway.

    8. Re:But healthcare doesn't make value..... by Oligonicella · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Our gross national product -- if we should judge America by that..."

      We shouldn't. Anyone who does has purposeful blinders on. The GDP and GNP are not for that. Nice bed of straw, though.

    9. Re:But healthcare doesn't make value..... by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Informative
      "In contrast, the Mexicans flat out rejected an identical oil resource clause..."

      Not to worry, the US will probably soon be annex'ing Mexico. I think I just figured out the immigration plan the govt. is working on.

      When the illegal immigrant population here in the US from MX reachs a bit over 1/3, of MX's total population....we can just annex the whole country...resources and all.

      We can claim, "Hey, we got the people here, we might as well get the real estate that goes with them".

      :-)

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    10. Re:But healthcare doesn't make value..... by Wavicle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What you think it means, is not necessarily what it means. Consider this population pyramid for the US. You see that dip after the 35-39 year olds? That's a problem. Those smaller bands of teens and 20 somethings are going to be supporting the 35-49 bands 20 years from now. Probably the reason the population increase seems to hint that things are still okay is because of those upper bands. People are living longer, so the net population change is not as apparent. But as economists are well aware, very soon way too many of our citizens will be hitting retirement age, and there are not enough young people to absorb their cost.

      --
      Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
      Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
  11. Futures market on the future of IT jobs by trance9 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=ITJOB S

    The above link is a futures exchange (where you bet only your reputation) on the future of ITJOBS in the US. You can compare articles like this to the consensus in that market. The market above includes a measure of whether or not the jobs we will still have in the future are well paying jobs or not. The current market consensus opinion is pretty rosy.

  12. everyone had a job in the stone age by Denial93 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    From the start I'm inclined to believe the article is flawed from a statistical perspecitve.

    I think it is flawed to concentrate on jobs in the first place. By far the more meaningful data to compare countries by is standard of living. After all, everyone had a job in the stone age!

    Of course standard of living is a subjective thing, practically only measurable through composition of a set of factors including such things as working hours per week, life expectancy, crime rate and even family size. Naturally, the weighing of factors would bias results in favor of one country or the other. Still it would perhaps give less absurd results than these statistics: I mean they make the US, where a single mom of average education is practically forced to take two jobs, look better than Germany, where some unemployed people still go on holiday twice a year!

    1. Re:everyone had a job in the stone age by Denial93 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      > Would YOU like to pay more in taxes so I could quit my job and yet still take 2 vacations a year?

      Actually, I do pay taxes in Germany and I have financed such vacations. I have good reason to. My reason is simple. Imagine a poor family in the US finds themselves facing a choice between a $100.000 hospital bill or death of their child.

      Do you think they will let the kid die?
      The economic model according to which helping the poor is a bad idea (called neoliberal although it is neither new nor liberal), assumes that they will.

      Or will use desperate measures that harm the system that forces them to make the decision?
      (Examples include defrauding the hospital, trying to raise money through crime - or even suicide, which destroys investments in education that you helped pay.)
      US crime and suicide rates firmly prove this to be the case.

      This is why the thinking that the poor do not need help is fundamentally flawed. People not served by the system will attack the system and defending/repairing the system is potentially much more expensive I do prefer financing vacations to massive crime rates and exploding prison populations, thank you very much.

    2. Re:everyone had a job in the stone age by Denial93 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > Why should people serve themselves if they know the system will serve them?

      According to rational choice theory (which underlies almost all economic thinking in this day) they should not. The availability of unemployment benefits, medical care etc. means that logically, people shouldn't work. But they do. Germany is an economic force to be reckoned with - and survived disasters like two World War defeats and annexation of part of the country be the Soviet Bloc - even though this "abuse incentive" has been in place since Bismarck's Health Insurance Act of 1883. The idea that unemployment benefits make people stop working is a fallacy that just keep being repeated.

  13. For a good ead... by mustafap · · Score: 2, Informative

    >The spoiler is the business of health care --

    Anyone interested in this point should read "The end of Medicine", reviewed on Slashdot recently.

    I found it a sad read. In between the author explaining why he is a realli smart, cool guy, he takes you on a tour of the tech companies working in the US health care area. There is *big* money in detecting and dealing with the symptoms of bad life style. And a lot of the money is going on tech.

    (The sad bit is how little is going on prevention - life style changes, proper food, exercise. Ah well)

    --
    Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
  14. What keeps US economy running by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Informative

    Easy. Why do you think the US is one of the proponents of IP and copyright? Because that's all that's left in its industry: Content.

    Agriculture is heavily subsidized. As in many/almost all "western" countries. In other words, a lossy business for the state. It's kept running to remain at least in a moderate way able to sustain itself, just in case the world starts treating them like, say, Cuba and shuts down international trade (or in case some country/ies decide it's fun to sink ships going for US harbors). It's a war insurance, if you want. And many other countries do exactly the same.

    Productive industry is pretty much in the same boat. From cars to consumer products, everything is manufactured abroad. The only hardware still going strong is military hardware, and there the government is even the main (and often only) customer, not something where they would EARN money. They're spending.

    So what remains as the generator of tax is service and content. Now, service is pretty hard to export. You can only export it by getting people from abroad to your country. While it is a generator of tax, it largely only creates domestic tax. Tourists from outside the US become fewer and fewer (and, honestly, I can't blame anyone who doesn't want to dare going to the US).

    So what remains as the bringer of foreign money (besides the biggest bringer, the ability to "tax" internationally by having the foreign trade currency at your pressing fingertips, the USD) and balances the foreign trade at least to some degree is content, patents and copyright.

    Health care is certainly a big tax bringer of the future, but this most certainly only creates domestic tax and does not generate a single cent of foreign money pouring into the country.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:What keeps US economy running by debrain · · Score: 3, Interesting
      A few misconceptions I may be able to shed some light on. :-)


      Agriculture is heavily subsidized. As in many/almost all "western" countries. In other words, a lossy business for the state. It's kept running to remain at least in a moderate way able to sustain itself, just in case the world starts treating them like, say, Cuba and shuts down international trade (or in case some country/ies decide it's fun to sink ships going for US harbors). It's a war insurance, if you want. And many other countries do exactly the same.


      In the USA, two factors most heavily affect the continued subsidization of agriculture: Lobbies and the electoral system. Powerful lobbying groups have huge sway over these problems, usually very large corporations who operate under the façade of being the small farmer. Through this, they yield the power of the college-electoral system through those American states with little else but primary industry, and unemployment is a huge electoral issue. Thus, this "farming the mailbox" is steadfast.

      Protection from war is an illusion, and known to be. Despite thoughts to the contrary, trade continues during war, especially agricultural trade - for every country lost to trade in foodstuffs, there are ten who want the barriers to exporting food to, e.g., the USA, dropped.


      So what remains as the bringer of foreign money (besides the biggest bringer, the ability to "tax" internationally by having the foreign trade currency at your pressing fingertips, the USD) and balances the foreign trade at least to some degree is content, patents and copyright.


      America's biggest currency stabilizer, where currency is economic purchasing power parity, is their own currency. The US dollar replaced gold as the ab initio staple currency after the Bretton Woods system failed, being the most liquid and stable currency available. Because other countries are subject to currency crises (i.e. Argentina, Thailand, etc.), they stock reserves in American dollars (foreign currency reserves).

      The US dollar, then, is effectively backed by every other nation-state interested in preserving its currency against crises. Whenever the US dollar gets "cheaper", foreign countries soak it up. Thus, the biggest "export", in terns of preservation of purchasing power parity, is the US dollar's stability. There are arguments about the Euro, but it's still not a proven currency, though it has all the qualities necessary to substitute for the US dollar, and someday it may.

      This isn't to say that patents and copyright are irrelevent. While they are a useful export, that contributes to continued economic growth in the USA, and particularly relevant as you say, as the USA has become essentially uncompetitive in most other areas. However, the laurels, as you could say, rest on the US dollar itself.
  15. Time For All the Baby-Boomers to Stand Up! by reporter · · Score: 4, Interesting
    According to the first paragraph of an article by the "San Francisco Chronicle", the baby-boom generation has 77 million people, and they begin retirement in 2008, which is only about 1.25 years from now. We should expect that major health problems (associated with old age) occur by age 60, which is 5 years before retirement. Age 60 corresponds to the year 2003. Consequently, the past 3 years has seen a tremendous growth in the health-care industry, and this growth is driven by healthcare for the babyboomers. This growth will continue until the last of the baby-boomers retire around 2025.

    There is really no mystery here. More old people means larger government spending on health care. More spending means more jobs in the health care industry.

    There are 2 other factors that have increased health-care spending. First is the millions of illegal aliens who have no insurance. They usually go straight to the emergency room, where physicians do not refuse service (even to people without insurance). The services are not paid by the illegal aliens but are paid by the government.

    Illegal aliens do become sick. They often work at grueling, backbreaking work. There is no incentive for American businesses (that employ illegal labor) to improve the working conditions because they can always find another desperate laborer if the current laborer becomes too sick to work. After all, the USA has an open-border policy with Mexico and the rest of South/Central America.

    The other factor that has increased health-care spending is the excessive hours which Americans are forced to work. "60 Minutes", the renowned CBS program, recentedly reported that the average American now works more hours than even the average Japanese. These additional hours of work take a severe toll on workers' health. For example, 60+ hours of computer work per week leads to cardiovascular problems due to lack of exercise. The excessive hours also strain family relations, leading to the need for counseling or psychotherapy. In Silion Valley, the divorce rate is about 30% higher than the national rate.

    1. Re:Time For All the Baby-Boomers to Stand Up! by OrangeTide · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Illegal aliens do become sick. They often work at grueling, backbreaking work. There is no incentive for American businesses (that employ illegal labor) to improve the working conditions because they can always find another desperate laborer if the current laborer becomes too sick to work. After all, the USA has an open-border policy with Mexico and the rest of South/Central America.


      This is an important point (although a tangent to the article). The abusive policy of allowing illegal workers into the US without providing them the basic protections and education that citizens get is absolutely disgusting. The solution to a complicated and difficult immigration system is not to just let people through the boarders. Every time someone mentions immigration reform people for immigrant rights go crazy and demand the preservation of the status quo. I don't get it. I think immigrants should be placed in a much better position than they are today. Some argue the price of fruit and building costs would skyrocket, but I'm not convinced. Besides it's not like they could skyrocket worse than the housing market.

      I think it would make sense to figure out what it usually costs for someone to illegally cross over (I've heard it's as expensive as $300). Just charge a bit less than that for a fast track work visa. take fingerprints and random DNA samples, photographs, etc. Give the work visa a 1 year expiration and hope that a vast majority of people go back to their country of origin once a year for christmas or easter or whatever. A valid non-expired work visa would enable a person to demand minimum wage and recieve basic services. To renew your visa you just go through the fast track again, it should be like going to the DMV. and the fast track ought to be a for-profit entity, the more effeciently you run it the greater your department profits. (give employees bonuses).

      Obviously this will never happen because the government is incapable of doing anything constructive.
      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    2. Re:Time For All the Baby-Boomers to Stand Up! by Veetox · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And the lesson? - Tell your kids to become geriatric doctors, because, by the time they're done with med school, that's where the money will be.

    3. Re:Time For All the Baby-Boomers to Stand Up! by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are severeal critical flaws with your plan.

      1. It smacks of amnesty so the "they're taking our jeeeeerrrrrrbbbbssss" nativists will never stand for it.
      2. No, they won't go home for xmas even if they have a one year visa.
      3. No matter how bad you think immigrants have it here its still better than where they came from, thats why they came here in the first place. Besides the first generation of immigrants are basically sacrificing themselves to ensure that successive generations of their families are in a better place, i.e. America so any pain they go thru is more than worth the bargain.

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    4. Re:Time For All the Baby-Boomers to Stand Up! by RyoShin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While a fast track for those who actually want to come and support the country with their work isn't a bad idea, it would defeat their purpose in coming here. If the illegal immigrants suddenly become legal, then most, if not all, will lose their jobs because their employers don't want to hire at a minimum/living wage. So we wind up with a new wave of illegal immigrants, who are willing to fork out an extra $50 if they can be guaranteed work (even if it's below minimum wage, because that's still more than they make in their own country). In the end, we wind up back where we started, but now with an extra five million citizens collecting unemployment and welfare. Yes, some will be able to go on to good jobs, and others will find work at local fast food chains, but not all of them.

  16. healthcare jobs already being outsourced by SethJohnson · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It seems that the economic engine that is the health care industry is already having its fuel siphoned to India. Employers are enrolling their staff in healthcare plans that will send patients overseas for medical procedures that can be scheduled in advance.

    The appeal is obvious: Heart surgeries and hip replacements in such countries as India, Thailand and Mexico can be had for less than one-third the cost in the USA.

    At the same time, medical costs in the USA are rising rapidly, with no end in sight.


    Seth

  17. Lucky me... by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What if you're in a country that has mandatory health care, unemployment insurance, retirement insurance and so on? Where is my increasing value! (*cry, rant*)

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  18. Desperation, maybe? by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You can get a kidney there for a price you can afford. Or you can't get any over here. You can maybe die from AIDS over there, or you can die for sure here.

    Pick your prefered cause of death.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  19. Various U.S. Economic problems by Rick17JJ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The U.S. economy probably is less healthy than it appears to be on the surface. We have a huge federal budget deficit as well as a huge trade deficit. A large percentage of our tax dollars goes towards paying the interest on what we have already borrowed. The majority of the federal budget deficit is being financed by money borrowed from Asian companies such as China. My knowledge about economics is somewhat limited, but my non-expert understanding is that in a strange sort of way the federal budget deficit helps make the trade deficit possible. Money needs to circulate between the two counties for trade to occur so China needs to send the dollars they they accumlate back here, somehow, to keep the price of the dollar from totally collapsing. So they buy T-bills from the U.S. Treasury to help us finance our deficit and the war in Iraq. That keeps the value of the dollar high enough for us to be able to buy goods from China at Wallmart and elsewhere. Correct me if my understanding of the economics is wrong, but doesn't the huge federal budget deficit help to make the huge trade deficit and loss of American jobs possible.

    There are other problems as well such as a possible housing bubble in which many people have purchased homes with zero-interest loans or no down payments. If there is a bubble and it collapses then many of them could be in serious trouble. There is also high consumer debt levels and GM and Ford also seem to be in trouble.

    So apparently, the overpriced health care that most of us can barely afford is now one of the main engines of the U.S. economy. There is that and housing (at least for the moment). The U.S. still dominates in making music and movies which Hollywood has been trying to protect with all the DRM and RIAA stuff they have been trying to push on all of us and the rest of the world. So the $500 per month that I pay for medical insurance is apparently going to support one of the few growing industries that the U.S. has heft.

    Oh and lets not forget that all the baby boomers will soon be retiring and demanding Social Security and Medicare payments. Baby boomers have had smaller families which means that each retired baby boomer will eventually be supported by only two tax-payers. Younger people can plan on doing that while paying off the federal deficit at the same time while working in a job market in which in which many of the best jobs have gone overseas. Am I wrong in thinking that all this is not a sustainable plan for a long term healthy economy? Would someone please explain to me why politicians, the press and voters have not been more concerned about decades of large scale deficit spending. The combination of the war in Iraq and the tax cuts have made the deficit spending worse than ever. It is almost like we are trying to burn ourselves out econonomically. Would someone who has more knowledge about macro-economics please explain why I should not be worried about any of this! It everything really OK?

  20. Business is good - just get healthcare clients by joshv · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I run a small IT consulting business (it's just me) and two of my clients are in health care. Business is good, and these clients are growing like gangbusters.

    Long term I worry though, as healthcare isn't fundamentally 'productive' in any sense. It's not making anything new, it's just chewing up a larger and larger percentage of our paychecks in the form of social security, medicare and insurance payments.

  21. Ignoring quality of life issues... by stomv · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nothing has been made because Aunty Tilly got a $20,000 bypass instead of a $5 bottle of asprin.

    If a bottle of asprin results in her passing away but the bypass gives her 20 years more life, then (adjusting for inflation, etc) she merely has to generate $1,000 more wealth each year than she consumes for the operation to be "worth it". And, consider this: she has some dollar value of training and experience, valuable both during her hours working and her other hours contributing to the community. It could be that buying her a bypass would be like fixing the alternator in your car; sure it doesn't result in anything "new" but it is a small repair on a valuable item. You wouldn't throw away your car with a bad alternator; don't throw away (valuable) Aunty Tilly because she's got a bad valve.

    Obviously, at some point people get old enough that society will never regain its financial investment in that elderly person (or lifetime-disabled person). S'OK. We're human beings; we take care of each other because we sympathize and empathize. It's part of the human condition, and it's a good thing.

    1. Re:Ignoring quality of life issues... by Mydron · · Score: 2, Interesting
      We take care of each other [...] it's a good thing
      Thank you for your great disservice. You have turned an economic problem into an emotional issue. This is ultimately why healthcare is such a hard problem, people don't like to hear that they (or their loved ones) are not immortal; but it's true. No one lives forever. Burying your head in the sand is not going to fix the problem: health care is costing too much.

      I have seen quotes that suggest 80-50 percent of health care costs are spent in the last three months of life 1, 2. How is that money well spent? Your insistence on fixing your Aunt Tilly is completely selfish and myopic. You successfully ignore the fact that the resources you have spent on Aunt Tilly are resources that could have been spent providing health care to other younger poeple.

      How about we make euthanasia a viable option and let healthcare costs incurred before age 60 be covered by the public/insured. After age 60 the public coverage of healthcare expenses can be pro-rated until about age 75-80 when costs are completely covered by the patient. That way, if you want to keep Aunt Tilly around no problem, you pay. But don't expect me to pay and don't you dare expect children and young adults to compromise their medical access for your Aunt.
    2. Re:Ignoring quality of life issues... by KlomDark · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "How about we make euthanasia a viable option and let healthcare costs incurred before age 60 be covered by the public/insured. After age 60 the public coverage of healthcare expenses can be pro-rated until about age 75-80 when costs are completely covered by the patient. That way, if you want to keep Aunt Tilly around no problem, you pay. But don't expect me to pay and don't you dare expect children and young adults to compromise their medical access for your Aunt."

      You're never going to sell that idea with the 'after age 60' part, since people born before 1970 (I think that's the year) have to work until they are 65, and people born after have to work till they are 67. Plus, pro-rating expenses on someone who no longer gets an income (Other than that shitty little retirement check each month) - that's just fucked up.

      Hell, why don't we just make it like Logan's Run and kill everyone the night before their 31st birthday?

  22. they count... by zogger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...someone who lost a manufacturing job with good benefits and wage in exchange for a service job with no benefits at half the previous wage as employed. Someone who has a part time job is employed, even if it is just a few hours a week. Making burgers is now a manufacturing job.

    It's nuts really, word rearrangement and spin to make things look better than what they are. As soon as the fed reserve note loses international lustre (and it is sliding that way now) the party is over. The globalists have had three decades now to prove their point that their magic theories work, and we have record deficits, record lack of savings, record budget shortfalls, pensions dropping all over, etc as the result. They can rearrange it all they want, it is still a failure unless you are in the tippy top income brackets. They tout real estate there, but what is it really? A mass of people who own *debt*, but not very much true home ownership, they own inflated mortgages, now at 30 years, or even worse, the "interest only" type mortgages, people who only own the hope that sometime some sucker will buy their property or way more than what it is really worth so they can pay off that huge mortgage and maybe show some true equity. Nuts.

  23. Exporting Dollars is the engine of US jobs. by Colin+Smith · · Score: 2, Informative

    Government "borrows" money, which creates dollars to be paid to government contractors who pay their suppliers, shareholders and employees.

    The reason US inflation hasn't skyrocketed in the past in response is oil. The producers are paid in US dollars which means the rest of the world has to buy these new dollars to pay for their oil, essentially what's happening is that inflation is being exported from the US to the rest of the oil consuming world, or rather, the US economy is heavily subsidised by the oil consuming world. With the falling dollar though and corresponding reduction in the value of their dollar holdings, some are switching those dollar holdings to alternative currencies so less of that inflation is being exported and the falling dollar accelerates. Prices appear to increase correspondingly.

    You will have noticed inflation and interest rates increasing.

    --
    Deleted
  24. Where's the market force? Where's technology? by Sloppy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My first reaction when I hear about an industry hiring so many people, is "how can I get those people fired so that the industry's product won't be so expensive?"

    I don't think I've ever heard of anyone comparison shopping for healthcare here in USA. And now that I think of it, I don't know how I would. It's not like prices are published somewhere, or that I can go get a copy of Consumer Reports that shows who gives the most value.

    Insurance is the reason. A lot of people think of insurance as healthcare, rather than "catastophic oops" hedging. If, when you consider going to a clinic or hospital, you're not thinking, "oh shit, how much will this cost?" then you're not going to exert a market force.

    If the patient doesn't exert a market force, then the provider will not be subject to market forces.

    And every once in a while, some politician runs on a platform of further removing market forces, to make healthcare even more expensive. At least insurance users have a little say over costs, by shopping around for insurance plans (though it's horribly indirect). Politicians get the bright idea of having involuntary taxes pay for healthcare, so that nobody will have any incentive at all to reduce cost. It's not like someone will say, "Well, I don't want to spend as much on healthcare, so I've decided to pay less, and the only way to do that is to pay less income tax, and the way to do that is to have less income. Therefore, I'm leaving IBM to accept McDonald's offer." ;-)

    I think if we can remove the indirections and somehow increase the information flow, we could get people to start thinking about cost/value, and create incentive for advancing the tech. I won't be happy until all the doctors and their support staff are unemployed, because we all have medi-droids taking care of us. You don't want a medi-droid? Ok, fine, hire expensive humans. But I sure want one. And if I can't have a robot, then let me hire someone who makes $10k/year, tele-operates from New Delhi, and prescribes 20-year-old no-longer-patented drugs. I might not live as long as you, but while I'm alive, I'll have a lot more beer money. :-)

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  25. Re:Sick Economy by Pontiac · · Score: 2, Informative

    I think you got your numbers messed up..

    The aritcle said 1.7 million new HEALTHCARE jobs..

    Are you trying to say Healthare should should be creating jobs to meet all US population growth???

    Healthcare alone added jobs to meet 12% of the population growth. Thats is quite a bit for a single sector of the job market.

    Now a usefull stastic would be how much did Healthcare grow vs US Population..

    Now according to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics there were 6,388,000 US Healthcare Jobs in 2002.
    By adding 1.7 million jobs the sector grew by 26%

    In the same timeframe the population grew by 5% so healthcare is growing 5x faster the the population.

    I couldn't find numbers for total US job growth from 2001 to today.

    --
    If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur. --Red Adair
  26. how the government spins the stats by nido · · Score: 2, Insightful

    See Shadow Statistics for more on how the government cooks the economic reports.

    US Trade Deficit: When the Sausage comes home to Roost has some good discussion on the coming consequences of the trade deficit, and how we got here. Particularly pertinent is the section at the end about the 1987 book The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, and how the U.S. has definitively entered the "fall" stage of the power cycle.

    But as you seem to indicate, few people seem to know that the federal reserve system is at the root of our poor nation's economic struggle. See the 1983 book The Misdirection Conspiracy: Or Who Really Killed the American Dream for a good history behind how the banking class (not your friendly neighborhood banker, but the Rockerfellers/Morgans/other globalist shysters) are sucking the lifeblood from the working class.

    Also worth mentioning that Michael Mandeville, author of The Coming Economic Collapse Of 2006 (2003) says that the predicted collapse is well underway. The current trouble at Ford and General Motors marks an acceleration of the decline.

    The present economic calamity was, of course, set in stone as soon as Nixon closed the gold window back in 1971, removing all incumbrances to out-of-control monetary growth (monetary inflation), or perhaps even as early as the establishment of the Federal Reserve system in 1913... See 1970's, redux for more on how globalization & the federal reserve bleeds america dry.

    --
    Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
    www.teslabox.com