Workaholism in America Is Hurting the Economy • Hacker News Board

Re: Workaholism in America Is Hurting the Economy

#231

Post by lallysingh » Tue, Jun 24, 2014, 5:50 PM UTC

jjoonathan wrote: post #51

dasil003 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vacation policies are the least of it. How about the lack of a safety net? Take health care. Civilized people should agree that medical care in a rich country should be available to everyone. The thought of people dying in the streets from preventable disease and injury sounds pretty horrendous. But for the past 20 years we've been fed the same fabricated FUD about socialized medicine that has no basis in reality. Pe…

> lack of a safety net? That's one argument. Here's another: Cost: http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourc... http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourc... vs Quality: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/press-releases/... http://www.businessinsider.com/best-healthcare-systems-in-th... EDIT: not sure if downvotes are because people think I'm saying that cost is less imp…

It might help (I didn't downvote, just suggesting) to put an intro to these arguments in the post, instead of just links.

Re: Workaholism in America Is Hurting the Economy

#232

Post by bradleysmith » Tue, Jun 24, 2014, 5:52 PM UTC

VLM wrote: post #168

bradleysmith wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

over half of the 6mil firms in the US with payrolls in this country have between 1 and 9 employees. ('08 numbers[0]). "employer" != 1% "policies good for employers" != "policies only good for 1%" [0]- https://www.census.gov/econ/smallbus.html

A lot of them are "employee in name only" contractors. Doesn't mean much. I've done it myself. There are tax implications when you get 1099'd, as long as you go in eyes open it'll be OK. Don't forget to file your quarterly estimated payments, the IRS isn't amused if you skip one. There's a lot of talk on HN about the natural evolved tribal size of human orgs being only XYZ people so when we inevitably have a larger t…

I have operated on 1099 as well; this will definitely cause some skewed numbers on 'employers'.

I believe my point stands, though. Being an employer does not implicitly mean you are part of the 1%; supporting policies that are pro-employer does not implicitly mean you are a neo-capitalist, anti-socialist 1%er.

Having been in a number of 'microfirms' myself, I intuitively think supporting them is wise policy (as a rule of thumb; as with most things, it's wise until it isn't). I may be biased, but I have seen many firms in the US that start this way and grow; low barriers for starting a business is one of the US's greatest assets, from my perspective. It is a foundation for social mobility, stands in contrast to much of the developed world, and is one of the primary motivators for people to chose the US when they 'vote with their feet'.

Re: Workaholism in America Is Hurting the Economy

#233

Post by matwood » Tue, Jun 24, 2014, 5:56 PM UTC

jgarcie wrote: post #21

cmollis wrote: post #9

It's frowned upon to take any time off in the US. I've seen it viewed as a sign of a lack of commitment or even laziness. Consequently, we take less time off because we're scared we're going to lose our jobs. No one is congratulated for taking time off in the middle of a project for your 'sanity' or 'to re-charge'. Everyone is scared. There is no safety net. It's no way to live, but it's our reality.

This. It is very difficult to take time off at my job. We have one set of "PTO" days that include vacation and sick days (as an employee of 2 years I get 15 days per year). Most people do not take long blocks of time off, usually it's a day off here and there, maybe two. We also have a no work from home policy. I am a web developer. Literally, my entire job can be done from a couch, and it is even frowned upon to sta…

it is even frowned upon to stay at home to work when I'm sick.

That's just stupid and lazy management. If people do not work when they are working at home then get rid of them. Period. For all the talk of people getting fired in the US, it seems to happen so rarely.

As for coming in sick that is horrible. Both my current and last job wanted sick people to stay home so as to not get the rest of the office sick.

Re: Workaholism in America Is Hurting the Economy

#234

Post by Dewie » Tue, Jun 24, 2014, 6:09 PM UTC

adventured wrote: post #228

Dewie wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was comparing the US to first world countries, not Europe as a whole. And no first world country is exceptionally poor compared to the US. Yes, the point in this case is actually to have fewer poor people - specifically a strong middle class. As supposed to, say, a vast percentage of poor workers and an exceptionally rich upper class. You'll have to be more specific, or else your post looks like a derailment from w…

Which European countries do you consider first world?

Western and Northern Europe, more or less, would be my guess. I'm not so sure about the Baltic states.

Re: Workaholism in America Is Hurting the Economy

#235

Post by wtbob » Tue, Jun 24, 2014, 6:11 PM UTC

dasil003 wrote: post #23

rayiner wrote: post #6

The article focuses on professionals, but I don't know if that's the angle I'm concerned about. American professionals work more, but they are also paid more. They also have much better vacation and leave policies. More concerning is the plight of median workers, who aren't making a lot more these days than their European counterparts, but have much worse vacation policies to deal with.

Vacation policies are the least of it. How about the lack of a safety net? Take health care. Civilized people should agree that medical care in a rich country should be available to everyone. The thought of people dying in the streets from preventable disease and injury sounds pretty horrendous. But for the past 20 years we've been fed the same fabricated FUD about socialized medicine that has no basis in reality. Pe…

> The thought of people dying in the streets from preventable disease and injury sounds pretty horrendous.

Funny that you raise FUD in your very next sentence, because that is itself FUD. Since the 1980s hospitals have been obliged to treat anyone who shows up.

> And it turns out that this medication is not as effective as the generic that would cost $2 per pill. But because there is no profitability this medication is not currently manufactured in the US.

That doesn't make sense. A generic is the same as the name-brand. You mean a different drug for the same disease, I presume.

And it doesn't make sense that there would be no profitability; by your numbers, a generic drug manufacturer could produce the $2 pill which works better than the $100 pill and sell it for $50, or $25, or whatever it wanted.

> America needs to pull its head out of its ass and realize we are little better than a third-world country for anyone below median income who doesn't have a good group health insurance policy.

Actually, one of the nice things about real third-world countries is that one can just go to the pharmacist and buy pills, instead of having to go through a professional gatekeepers' union (the AMA) to do so.

Re: Workaholism in America Is Hurting the Economy

#236

Post by refurb » Tue, Jun 24, 2014, 6:20 PM UTC

asgard1024 wrote: post #226

refurb wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no doubt there are examples of cheaper generics in the EU than US, but overall, US generics are cheaper.[1] [1] http://www.gabionline.net/Reports/Are-generic-medicines-too-...

Where in the article are the US prices compared to EU prices? It seems that it compares EU prices to production prices (in India and China). It also states: "We also see that in countries that have free market pricing of medicines (where companies can decide for themselves the price of a new medicine), such as Germany, the price of generic medicines tend to be higher than in countries which regulate medicine prices."…

Here is the article I was thinking of....

http://managinghealthcarecosts.blogspot.com/2012/03/united-s...

The US payers more for brand name drugs, but less than nearly every other OECD country (with the exception of NZ).

Re: Workaholism in America Is Hurting the Economy

#237

Post by whybroke » Tue, Jun 24, 2014, 6:20 PM UTC

Someone1234 wrote: post #16

cmollis wrote: post #9

It's frowned upon to take any time off in the US. I've seen it viewed as a sign of a lack of commitment or even laziness. Consequently, we take less time off because we're scared we're going to lose our jobs. No one is congratulated for taking time off in the middle of a project for your 'sanity' or 'to re-charge'. Everyone is scared. There is no safety net. It's no way to live, but it's our reality.

> There is no safety net. That's a wonderfully succinct way of describing the US. It seems like in a lot of EU countries if you fail there is something to catch you (higher, longer, easier to get unemployment pay for one example), whereas there really is no lower limit on how low the US will let you fall (e.g. healthcare is a privilege not a right in the US). They do say that the US has some of the highest anti-depre…

>It seems like in a lot of EU countries if you fail there is something to catch you

While shrinking a bit, comparatively this very, very true.

On the other hand, there could never be a city in post Dickensian Europe where immensely well paid beautiful people laughingly step their way daily through homeless people on their way to a nightly evening of cigars and whiskey while discussing how aggregating the aggregators is going to change the world.

So there's that.

Re: Workaholism in America Is Hurting the Economy

#238

Post by refurb » Tue, Jun 24, 2014, 6:21 PM UTC

whybroke wrote: post #207

zo1 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I quote the parent poster: "The US has lower generic prices that most of the EU " Emphasis mine. Perhaps, if they were consistently "cheaper" than the US, fine. But your singular example doesn't quite contradict the person you're responding to. So it actually is the case, unless you prove your findings for other EU countries. I have no idea if that's the case, just pointing out the obvious flaw in your logic. Perhaps…

Quite correct: I have no idea what the price is in Lichtenstein. Nor have I compared the price of every drug manufactured. Nor even a majority of those thousands. I have, however bought a dozen or so different drugs and have done so in France, Italy, Croatia, Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands. All of which were tiny fraction of the price in the US. So given two hypothesis: the US is cheaper vs the EU is cheaper, an…

I'd take a Commonwealth Fund analysis over your "Bayesian statistical analysis".

http://managinghealthcarecosts.blogspot.com/2012/03/united-s...

Re: Workaholism in America Is Hurting the Economy

#239

Post by yequalsx » Tue, Jun 24, 2014, 6:22 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #199

yequalsx wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hospitals are not required to treat people regardless of ability to pay. Hospitals are merely required to stabilize a patient before dumping them. The U.S. spends around 16% GDP on healthcare. This is by far the most of any industrialized nations. Americans have among the worst health care outcomes of the industrialized nations. Americans spend far more for procedures than citizens of other countries. Medicaid only k…

You've made several erroneous claims, so I'll comment on a few of them: Hospitals are not required to treat, but most do. It is general knowledge in the industry that if you can't afford treatment for your cancer you go to a local hospital where you will be treated regardless of ability to pay. Yes the US spends more than any other industrialized nation, but no, health outcomes are not the worst. If you use blunt too…

Your last sentence is not warranted and has no place on this site. The Medicaid bump only applies to states that enacted it. It is also a recent thing.

People without healthcare insurance often find out they have cancer far too late. While they may find treatment for free often times it is too late. If the free healthcare that hospitals provide was anywhere near adequate then people with insurance would dump it and save money. The fact that people with health insurance aren't dumping it in droves proves that care without it is inadequate.

Old people are costly to care for. They are unprofitable from the insurance industry perspective. Medicare was enacted because the country at the time was civilized enough to not want millions of elderly to do without health insurance. It is not disputable that this benefits the insurance industry.

You can't directly lose your home due to medical bills. You can lose for not being able to afford payments because medical bills for needed healthcare cost too much. There are lots of examples of this. Medical bills are the number one reason for bankruptcy in the u.s.

It is not known why the U.S. has lower life expectancy but the lower rate is correlated to income and education. I did not say our health outcomes are the worst. I said they are among the worst. In terms of happiness, overall health, life expectancy, etc. we do badly. There are areas where we do well.

Re: Workaholism in America Is Hurting the Economy

#240

Post by refurb » Tue, Jun 24, 2014, 6:22 PM UTC

whybroke wrote: post #216

refurb wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your example of the cost of medication is an odd one. Most (all?) states in the US have mandatory generic substitution. That means the pharmacy must fill your Rx with the generic unless the doctor wrote "Dispense as Written" on the Rx. Now, if the generic was not available in the US that is a different story. Patents don't all end at the same time, so the drug may already be off patent in the UK, but not in the US. F…

> In addition, if you are sick and you go to a hospital, you must be treated regardless of your ability to pay. If you'll pardon a second response, I must point out this is only true of emergencies like car accidents and the ever abundance of shootings. In most states, if you get cancer without insurance you just die. Period. And not by euthanasia, by the way, because apparently that is mortal sin / slippery-slope to…

"In most states, if you get cancer without insurance you just die. Period. And not by euthanasia, by the way, because apparently that is mortal sin / slippery-slope to mass murder."

This is patently untrue. Do a google search for "disproportionate share hospitals" and "charity care". In my line of work I've spoken with numerous oncologists and I've asked them "what do you do if your patient can't afford cancer treatment?" and the answer was always "I send them to the local hospital that treats them regardless of ability to pay."