The Engine of US Jobs 324
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."
Time For All Those Health Nazis To Shut Up! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, ok, but could you knock off the popping out of your little holes, grabbing us and eating us bit? It's annoying.
KFG
But healthcare doesn't make value..... (Score:5, 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.
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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 tha
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt they would be surprised. Many treaties chip away at a country's sovereignty -- joining the UN or joining NATO or the WTO, for example.
But NAFTA surely impacts a nation's sovereignty. How else can you describe a treaty where unelected bureaucrats can veto the people's laws which were enacted democratically, simply by those bureaucrats determining that those laws are a barrier to "free" trade?
You may
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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".
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't that many years ago that we tried to implement clean fuel additive regulations up here to cut down on health care costs. Fuel companies not only overturned the regulations, they scooped up some tidy damages cash and all their legal fees out of the public coffers.
Oh, and the value of an economy is in the productivity of its population, not how busy they are. All the baby boomers are going to retire, and more of the population than ever before wi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:But healthcare doesn't make value..... (Score:5, Interesting)
That's not true.
A strong economy can be had with trade if the two nations have comparative advantage in trade. [wikipedia.org]
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. [hofstra.edu]
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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 lower
Take a step back... (Score:2)
We all need to take step back and look at the forest and not t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Value is virtual - it is created when people agree it is created. Your disagreement stems from your arbitrary belief the GDP wasn't bullshit in the first place.
Re:But healthcare doesn't make value..... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, there are many problems with the GDP measurement, and those misunderstandings can lead to poor policy ideas. But it is not, and never was intended to be, the be-all/end-all of economic well-being metrics. RFK is eminently justified in saying that the GDP doesn't measure "integrity, wit, or joy" -- that's because those are really hard to measure, and extremely subjective.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We shouldn't. Anyone who does has purposeful blinders on. The GDP and GNP are not for that. Nice bed of straw, though.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ignoring quality of life issues... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 thre
Re: (Score:2)
The US health care system is inefficient and massively expensive. The fact that it creates some jobs is largely irrelevant.
The people working in those health care jobs could be creating wealth -- producing widgets or creating Microsoft anti-virus software, anything that creates value, and maybe even help address the huge US trade deficit.
But instead, the trade deficit continues to grow and the value of the dollar has gone down about 30% against the Euro in the past 6 years.
To get an idea of
Re: (Score:2)
GDP is a silly measure of the economy.
but at the time it was created and used there wasn't a lot of knowlege about other methods of measureing the economy.
Have a look into GPI!
http://www.rprogress.org/projects/gpi/ [rprogress.org]
http://www.gpiatlantic.org/ [gpiatlantic.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genuine_Progress_Indi cator [wikipedia.org]
basically you start with GDP, and subtract all the useless stuff that your money has been spent on (ie oil spills)
then you subtract the value of any assests that can no longer produce wealth
Re: (Score:2)
Cost money to drill, cost money to pump into ship, cost money to transport, cost money to clean up -- no money from sales. It may have benefitted some smaller companies, but economists look at the complete picture. It was a loss. Period. Show otherwise. I mean with figures and reason instead of a declarative statement.
Don't give up your job.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not entirely true, from an economic standpoint. The horizontal redistribution of wealth to a services industry keeps money moving about (where imports and exports are vertical, entries/exits). While it may not appear "useful", the greater the services industry, the greater the capacitance effect (currency in circulation), before money starting in exports goes to payi
Time For All the Baby-Boomers to Stand Up! (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [nytimes.com].
Re:Time For All the Baby-Boomers to Stand Up! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
whooops sorry (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Why mention illegal aliens? There might be as many as 11 million illegal aliens in the US, but there are definitely 40 million uninsured Americans (mostly poor). The uninsured Americans go straight to Emergency Rooms too, and for the same reasons that you mention.
Re: (Score:2)
"The services are not paid by the illegal aliens but are paid by the government."
Personally, I feel it's people who think the "government" pays for stuff is the problem. It's usually the same folks that happily tell you how much money they got "back" from taxes.
Broken window (Score:2)
What's Really ... (Score:4, Informative)
Invisible Job Benefits (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
*waves hand in front of you*
Look! Visisble!
*grumble*
Re:Invisible Job Benefits (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Try protesting the rise of a fascist government. If the UK is anything like the US, then to your elected officials and mainstream media, you will be completely invisible.
Lucky me... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Who pays the bills? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Who pays the bills? (Score:5, 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/ [google.com]
BTW the article missed out Lawyers from the groups that will benefit.
Re: (Score:2)
While I'm not saying all these overseas healthcare providers are crooks this is still an
Desperation, maybe? (Score:5, Insightful)
Pick your prefered cause of death.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 hav
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
Questionable basis (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 [bls.gov] seems to be pretty good.
OP is still correct (Score:2)
This isn't the same method used in said European countries, where part-timers who are looking for a job are also seen as unemployed. Thus, the OP still is correct on this point: i
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Mod Parent up (Score:2)
everyone had a job in the stone age (Score:3, Insightful)
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. Naturall
Re:everyone had a job in the stone age (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
they count... (Score:2, Insightful)
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 thre
how the government spins the stats (Score:3, Insightful)
US Trade Deficit: When the Sausage comes home to Roost [bitsofnews.com] 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
"hot" economy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Various U.S. Economic problems (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?
Re: (Score:2)
You got it. Outside of slaughtering chickens and picking vegetables, the hospital industry in particular is historically a major employer of poor, uneducated minorities that they figure will take the crap for pennies -- probably on rotating shifts including weekends. In contrast to United Health Care's WIlliam McGuire and
One Solution.... Robots. (Score:2)
Well the only way I can think of making health care less labor-intensive is to use robots. Lots of 'em. Or some kind of super robot that can do everything like cleaning bedpans, checking blood pressure, bathing patients, flirting with the X-ray machines etc. We could c
His name is Jose. (Score:2)
Well the only way I can think of making health care less labor-intensive is to use robots. Lots of 'em. Or some kind of super robot that can do everything like cleaning bedpans, checking blood pressure, bathing patients, flirting with the X-ray machines etc. We could call it Super Robot, or maybe Frank. I think I prefer Frank.
Or, on the women's wards, Consuela.
[Why do you think that The Powers That Be import them by the millions every year?]
Broken window fallacy again (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Now, TFA does seem to realize that this isn't a good thing; however, what TFA says regarding the problem with this matter doesn't make too much sense:
" There's another enormous long-term problem: If current trends continue, 30% to 40% of all new jobs created over the next 25 years will be in health care. That sort of lopsided job creation
Not suited for Healthcare Profession (Score:2)
I spent a couple years of my life in college as a Radiological Technologies major. I loved the hard science, but hated the application. My advisor was urging me to finish up and specialize in radiation therapy. This was mostly because I am not really a people person and "radiating" people "near" to death to possibly kill cancer would not have phased me. Least not while I was hiding behind a lead wall. *wink
What if... (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
--
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Who the hell said that?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I live in the UK. Here we have a system of publically funded healthcare (the NHS) which a high proportion of the population uses. Sometimes treatments are developed - particularly expensive drugs - then not approved for NHS use because the benefits are not felt to justify the cost.
Now of course as an individual who would benefit from such a drug you have the option in some cases to "go private" and receive t
There is a subtle difference... (Score:2)
There is a subtle difference compared to the US.
The problem is that fewer can afford "going private" -- after paying much higher taxes to pay for everyone else's health care.
(But the US health care system seems even more dysfunctional than my local Swedish one. That is another discussion.)
Re: (Score:2)
The same way the developing/poor countries do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
These sort of what-if scenarios don't really advance the debate :
Re: (Score:2)
Um, for only 10 years, I'd say let's keep the US method of only those that can pay for it. If your life extension was able to give 100-200 years with most of that time me looking/feeling like a 24-35 year old, then I
One phrase: Jobless Recovery (Score:2, Insightful)
the non-existence of the signs of a good economy - but all the signs of one being dismantled
Futures market on the future of IT jobs (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
--Rob
For a good ead... (Score:3, Informative)
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)
What keeps US economy running (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:What keeps US economy running (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
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.
How to combine two facts? (Score:2)
Net result: next generation less healthier than the previous one.
Re: (Score:2)
Politicians think in terms. Not in decades.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As the parent of three teenage children, I can authoritatively say that the path to becoming rich starts with the decision to have no children. Of course I wouldn't give up my little darlings, but anyone who's raised children knows how expensive this can be.
Also, your statement "the poorest are struggling without any health care" is far fro
Compare and contrast (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
healthcare jobs already being outsourced (Score:4, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Not so. As soon as the medical profession realises it must either find some way to compete or wind up doing little more than diagnosis and emergency work, it will do so.
At least, that's the theory. The years running up to that actually happening aren't much fun for anyone, though.
Having a friend stuck in the system (Score:2)
1. At the top of the food chain, the doctors need to spend less time treating the information on their (admittedly low tech) clipboards and more time taking a broader interest in the totality of the patient's condition. Any dividend from IT there is going to be negative in terms of health outcomes f
Business is good - just get healthcare clients (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Exporting Dollars is the engine of US jobs. (Score:3, Informative)
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.
You and I know why..... (Score:2)
"That Guy" got replaced by a small shell script. This industry is one of the few that has the ability to do more with less
Where's the market force? Where's technology? (Score:3, 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. :-)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 jo