Calling it "insurance" is a linguistic trick politicians use to remove the stigma (little that there is these days) of being supported by the state. Is it really insurance if you're forced to pay for it? Or is it just another welfare program?
I imagine this guy sees it as just another welfare program, and thankful as he was to receive it, he was also ashamed to take it. We'd be better off if everyone was so "foolish."
Whether it was forced or not has absolutely nothing to do with whether it was insurance or whether it was originally his money anyway. Unemployment payments are effectively a tax cut (taxes being another forced fee) yet I've never heard of anyone claiming tax cuts are welfare.
I'm sure the guy did see it as a welfare program. That's why I called him a fool.
Maybe this is a natural reaction to the fact that so much of the information we receive is propaganda? Even if, for example, a news story presents a series of facts, other relevant facts are often elided to give a mis-impression.
This post is silly. No one is forced to work at an unsafe job for any given wage. The job of the government should not be to say "you can only work for this long, for this wage, under these conditions." Shouldn't that question be up to the would-be employee?
And you're not as clever as you think bringing up asbestos. You're far more likely to die in a fire because your building had its asbestos replaced with shitty fireproofing than from the cancer that asbestos can cause.
We all need income to SURVIVE, and indeed FORCED to take the market wage for our labor. The question is whether the market wage will tend toward "Modern Western Wage" or "Communist Slave Wage." Current trade and industrial policies favor the latter.
But the government cannot, by fiat, deem that people should make "Modern Western Wage" because some people's work is not worth that much. Forcing wages to be at that level causes more problems than it solves (i.e. massive offshoring). Minimum wage laws, workplace safety laws, environmental standards, etc, all raise the cost of doing business and make it so only people whose work is worth "Modern Western Wage" can be employed.
The whole point is that "Current trade and industrial policies" favor the former ("Modern Western Wage"), not the latter, which is what is causing the problems in the US. Did you read the article?
Wow look at how clearly he answers the questions. Half his answers begin with a "Yes" or a "No." Can you imagine someone thinking and speaking this clearly these days?
Yeah, whether or not you agree with Hayek, he is obviously a smart guy who has no problem articulating where he stands on an issue. I wonder if it's a generational difference. My grand parents for example have no problem telling you what they think and their reasoning on why.
No one would complain about unionized teachers if they were doing a good job. All people see is vast sums of money going in and functionally retarded children coming out.
This could be because of bad teachers, bad parents, stupid/unteachable children, etc, but the unions' only solution is always "more money." Is it unreasonable to think, then, that the unions are acting in bad faith? The teachers are the only ones who get to elect the union leaders so they are responsible, directly or indirectly.
There's a huge shortage of qualified teachers because of the nonsense teachers ed requirements for certifying teachers. You've probably seen many articles on how ridiculous and shoddy these curricula are. These requirements exist at the behest of the unions to protect their members from competition.
More like back to the stone age. Look at the Indian stock market: they have transaction taxes on the order of .01-0.1% and the bid-ask spreads are huge. A tax like this would make it even more difficult for average people to get a fair price.
Do you have a cite? I ask because I believe the growth of health care costs in MA over the last year has been lower than in other comparable states.
I believe the consensus amongst health care economists is that MA made the right choice in pushing for universality first and tackling cost growth later. And that's exactly what they're doing: MA has now started some very aggressive cost control plans, plans that are much easier to enact because of the regulated exchange and mandates that MA created.
