As such, when comparing income tax and capital gains, you should add the impact of corporate taxes. Incidentally, corporate taxes are why many small business owners pay themselves wage income, rather than doing stock buybacks or dividends.

These gains might be realized at any point if they're willing to pay taxes for them.

Having lots of money but choosing not to spend it doesn't make you any less wealthy.

Because he is? I do not expect for some sort of universal “AGI” to emerge within my lifetime which would supplant humans in every area (of course what do I know.. but still there is no real indication we are even remotely close to that currently)

> default is to attribute all the generated value to them when it really isn't the case

Certainly, you should attribute a significant proportion to the people who installed the automated system and even more to those who designed it.

i wasnt sure if it simply takes a different form or gets eliminated completly.

But we're not going to eliminate misery from the healthcare system. Demand is effectively infinite, mainly from patients with complex conditions, and supply is finite. Developed countries with more socialized healthcare systems typically do a pretty good job of delivering basic primary care but things often fall apart when more complex or specialized care is needed. Those systems also ration and deny care but it tends to be through forcing patients to wait in long queues, or simply not offering expensive treatments at all. Like under the UK NHS, some prescription cancer drugs just aren't available. So that's a different form of misery.

Are you living in the same country as the rest of us? There is plentiful evidence of the enormous fraud and waste. It’s not even a point of debate anymore.

It's true that no matter how you look at it, the USA spends a lot more per capita on healthcare relative to outcomes. But you have to be careful what outcome metric you look at. Like we're not doing great on life expectancy, but much of that is due to factors largely outside the healthcare system like violence, vehicle crashes, and lifestyle choices. And in other areas like 5-year cancer survival rates or new drug development we're at or near the top. Part of the problem in the USA is that we seem to be culturally incapable of admitting that rationing is needed, and that it simply isn't feasible to deliver excellent care to everyone, so political reform debates devolve into sound bites about "death panels".

The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) set a minimum health plan medical loss ratio of 80%, or actually 85% for larger plans. And in practice most come in higher than that due to competitive pressures.

https://www.cms.gov/marketplace/private-health-insurance/med...

There's a huge amount of administrative overhead in dealing with health plans for things like claims and prior authorization. Much of that is imposed not so much by insurers themselves but by employers who want to hold down costs. Like a commercial insurer would be happy to sell a plan that would pay every claim immediately at 100% with no questions asked. It would be less work for them. But no one would buy it because costs would explode. Medicare and Medicaid plans also have prior authorization and peer review processes. Something like a quarter of all healthcare services are "low value care" which doesn't align with evidence-based clinical practice guidelines and may even harm the patient, so when health plans apply review processes the right way then ideally it's better for patients and holds down costs for everyone.

To be clear, I'm not here to defend commercial health insurance companies. They are part of the problem and some reforms in that area are sorely needed. But let's have an honest debate about it and stop pretending that eliminating them would solve the deeper systemic problems.

It dramatically lowered the cost to consumers. Further, conflating overall healthcare spend with the portion of spend tied to a significantly lower-cost population is apples and oranges at best and represents a fundamental misunderstanding of healthcare cost in general. It's ok to not have opinions about things you know you don't understand.

Well just copy paste the Swiss system (of course that’s not feasible both the “free market” and pro “socialized” single payer supporters would hate it). However they have a heavily regulated, reasonably affordable fully private healthcare system.

Part of the problem is that we force physicians to waste too much time on administrative work. Some of this could be delegated to cheaper employees or not done at all, thus effectively increasing supply. Administrative overhead is also one of the factors driving physicians to quit and pivot to other careers or retire early, which further constrains supply.

This part is controversial but we'll also have to shift a lot of primary care to Physician Assistants and Nurse Practitioners. Care quality might be lower in some cases but for routine conditions it's probably better to see a PA/NP today instead of waiting weeks for a physician.

When we fix the price of something below the market clearing price then there will always be a shortage. This is inevitable. We might decide that having a shortage of orthopedic surgeons is acceptable but let's not pretend that there are no trade-offs.

Germany has a stagnant economy so it's easy for their healthcare system to pay doctors lower wages because they have few other options. Baumol's cost disease is a real factor in healthcare, and it impacts the USA more than most other countries precisely because our overall economic growth has been so robust.

The quotes around "Medicare For All" were intended not to scare anyone but to identify a general set of policy proposals that have been floating around lately.

Kind of amazing how perfectly this illustrates that in the exact same economy, the system with single payer mostly works to keep prices sane, and the private insurance model goes off the rails

That actually sounds a lot like speculation. You're claiming that the most largest structural difference in the healthcare system in the US compared to other countries is unrelated to the difference in costs, and that other factors explain it, based on inferences from things not related to healthcare. I don't understand how you can have any degree of confidence that single payer versus private insurance has no effect at all based on what you're saying.

We should all just stop speaking. The origin of too many words is problematic. Just think of how many were coined by racists and misogynists!

https://www.starbucksbenefits.com/en-us/home/stock-savings/s...

So you're saying I'm in poverty because I couldn't buy my house and my car outright?

> and medical expenses in retirement

You're saying I'm in poverty because I understand and intend to use Medicare?

These are trivially poor definitions.

There's an extreme selection bias there. If you run an agency that works with low income families you're not going to see a representative sample of the overall population.

That is, Henry Ford changed the world because he deployed capital to make workers so productive that they could afford to buy the cars they make.

A person paid to do child care in an organization with overhead, who has to pay taxes, etc. is not productive enough to put their own children in child care. So child care fails to revolutionize the world the way the car did.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol_effect

So, the people you are mentioning making 12-18/hr, are literally below 1 in 4, to less than 1 in 10. These are not “average middle class Americans” except maybe in that higher end. These are low wage earners and are far below “average”.

I mean absolutely nothing normative by this statement, nothing about whether this is good or bad or what we should do policy, socially, whatever. But saying someone making below the 10th percentile is average is like saying someone making $75/hr is average.

But even this feels like it is overstating things. You say folks are one car repair away from being homeless. And there is a lot of polling that shows people would struggle to pay for repairs. But full on homelessness? I can only assume that you are describing towns/cities that offer no transport assistance at all, that lands people into being so dependent on a car. I believe it, but I struggle to think this is literally half the nation.

???

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N

Note this is already inflation adjusted, so "housing, food, gas, medical care costs are all increasing" is already accounted for.

But in addition to the raw numbers, you have to keep in mind that they don't account for cost of living and that different countries account for various services differently, especially health care.

* Median household income in Mississippi: $44,717

* Median wage in Germany: €5,370 per month, equals $73,565.

So even the individual median wage in Germany is more than 50% higher than the median household income in Mississippi.

Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...

If you put Germans whose lives function in a US-style, even just getting to work will be a huge drag.

Misery depends on the structure of society. Here in Sweden I can walk to work. This means that I'm spending zero money on travel to work, and that my travel to work contributes $0 to Swedish GDP. But this is actually better than if Swedish GDP were higher and I was traveling by car.

This is one way in which GDP can be extremely misleading.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/08/19/more-amer...

Why is it impossible for Americans to live with 300 sq ft per person like baby boomers did as kids, but now we must live with 600+ sq ft per person?

The median (not average) household income in the US is 80K USD. p25 is 40K. p10 is 20K. They're struggling, sure.

But I wouldn't call that abject poverty.

Instead they said "abject poverty" as an emotional emphasizer, and people rightly called them out.

> half of the US is living in poverty

This statement is also false.

> I encourage you to try to live on anywhere from $7 to $15 an hour

That's the bottom quintile, not the bottom half. The Median household income is $83,730, which would be more like $41.50.

This is a functionaly unmovable number. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N

> you can't afford rent

Because we as a society have drastically changed how we use housing: https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2023/06/more-than-a-q... -- Multi generational housing was a thing. Having roommates was a thing... the premise of "golden girls" would be lost to a modern audience, because cohabitation is dead. The premise of "bosom buddies" would get canceled for its insensitivity, but no one would understand because boarding houses are all but gone.

Building every one in the world an American style house, would cripple the globe. Concrete, Sand, Copper, Wood are going to become massive problems long before we get close to getting the job done.

> Ignore my vacation homes in Aspen, Jackson Hole and Nantucket.

You think that vacation homes are causing the housing crisis? Are eroding wages elsewhere? The industry of these locations is TOURISM, and a fair bit of it is international. (Not Nantucket).

It's not like whaling is going to make a comeback to make Nantucket a viable place to live again.

> Just think about how much better you have it than the people in Haiti and get back to work!"

Plenty of Americans look at musk and say "lets eat the rich" ... the problem is that the rest of the world has those same hungry eyes for us.

https://research.senedd.wales/research-articles/poverty-and-...

Does being poor cause mental health issues, or are mental heath issues a cause of poverty... The answer here clearly better access (read free) to mental heath care, and it wont have the impact one would think (see the UK data).

> Look at other stats like rising infant mortality

You mean the attributions tied directly to maternal complications: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsrr/vsrr033.pdf

The thing is we changed how we collect this data, to something that would be considered bad: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2024/03/13/maternal-mo... - There are tons of criticism on how we collect this data, they are valid, if you dont like this source, find another its a mess of our own creation.

> dropping IQ etc.

The largest root cause is that people spend too much time on their cell phone dumbing themselves down. Think about that one... no one feels the need to elevate themselves, they are happy to spend time on what amounts to leisure. Would you have sympathy for the person who gets fired cause they chose to play 18 holes of golf 5 days a week rather than do their job?

Maybe it feels good to say "actually everyone is a victim of capitalism", but it muddies real necessary work when it comes to determining whether to prioritize how resources need to be allocated between a disabled person living on the streets vs a graduate student who is currently just a little underwater on their credit card payments.

While we must be mindful of greed and abuse, we need to include all underlying costs before just assuming people are cranking up rents. I'm not a landlord but I own property and the costs are gotten vicious lately. Labor is expensive, materials are insane, energy costs, and now insurance are suffocating. And in states with high property taxes, watch out.

This sets a price cap, makes these high density spaces affordable for people who want to live their whole lives there and not just their single 20's, brings diversity into communities and drops the floor out of the prices on these single occupancy closets going for $2000 per month.

All human collective endeavors (with few exceptions) require 3 kinds of human-related input: capital, labor and ideas.

Nobody puts their capital into an endeavor in which the plan is for the that capital to provide renumeration for the labor for more than the shortest possible time (*). The goal is always to generate revenue in sufficient volume to pay for the labor, and when that goal is met, that success is a function of all 3 kinds of contribution.

So no, employee compensation does not come from capital, but from revenue that results from the successful interaction of capital, labor and ideas.

(*) non-profits would be an obvious exception, except that nobody actually talks about investing capital in such organizations, we just make "donations" or "grants". That money plays the same role as capital, however.

Just as are the top executives. And the shareholders that have put money into companies that provide "robots, etc.". All these people, including labor, are stakeholders. If there was 5% GDP growth that got reflected as 5% growth in net earnings for the company, one would expect that all the stakeholders would see roughly a 5% increase in their personal earnings from the company. The dollar amount would be higher for higher earners (5% of $1M is greater than 5% of $50k), but the percentage increase would be roughly in line. The real world results are not even close to this "rising tide lifts all boats" ideal.

And when you dig a bit more, you kinda find out this isn't really true?

I mean look at this AI summary of asking "Was Jeff Bezos born into wealth"

> Jeff Bezos was not born into wealth; his mother was a 17-year-old student and his adoptive father was an impoverished Cuban refugee who arrived in the U.S. alone at age 16. However, his maternal grandfather owned a large Texas ranch and later provided roughly $250,000 to help fund the launch of Amazon

Oh so his parents weren't wealthy only his grandparents. That's totally different

You know what my Grandpa gave me? A used car worth about 3 grand. Still amazing, I'm still very grateful to him! But the comparison here is absolutely not in the same league!

And I'm still a fortunate one, because many people get much less than a car from their families

People debate how much social mobility there is in the US, but it seems pretty clear that the trend has been toward less mobility. The founding fathers of the US did not want to replace one aristocracy with another. Obviously there are some who think the change makes sense-- not me.

It's also utterly deranged even when you just consider that most tech workers get compensated with stock.

Being able to afford a slightly nicer car or house does not change your class. Being able to influence elections, buy lobbying power, play power games, being in the "in" group of capitalism changes your class.

[1] https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/

It looks like this is another facet of the "bitter medicine" that we're seeing around housing in general.

The first article that I saw pointed out that there is a correlation between productivity and regulation (of construction permitting etc). I would believe that because it has a corollary with "housing starts" (a measure of new construction) and its regional strength in the red/south portion of the country.

I would contend that the accountant should not - it should flow to who bore the cost of the input (capital owners). however, if you starve labor of those gains, it destroys the consumer base that capital relies on to buy its goods and services. therefore, society requires broad wealth distribution to function, which implies some level of redistribution by the state is needed.