Jump to content

Everything is Shit: Tracking the Great Enshittening


956 Worldwide

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

FIFY

88% of full time workers in private industry have employer-provided healthcare. 

average employee-paid premium for single coverage is $150, or $600 for family. price is similar across all wage categories. 

growing up we were covered by my dads bluecross blueshield program, and thats from his extremely pedestrian blue collar job. not exactly affluent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

88% of full time workers in private industry have employer-provided healthcare. 

average employee-paid premium for single coverage is $150, or $600 for family. price is similar across all wage categories. 

growing up we were covered by my dads bluecross blueshield program, and thats from his extremely pedestrian blue collar job. not exactly affluent. 

Newsflash: shit ain't like that anymore. Healthcare should not be tied to employment. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I haven’t used it on my last 3 trips because the dedicated pre-lane was shorter. 
Clear+pre is no longer useful at AUS.

Same experience at BNA this morning. Clear line was substantially longer. Skipped it and went through regular pre. 

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

88% of full time workers in private industry have employer-provided healthcare. 

average employee-paid premium for single coverage is $150, or $600 for family. price is similar across all wage categories. 

growing up we were covered by my dads bluecross blueshield program, and thats from his extremely pedestrian blue collar job. not exactly affluent. 

Damn, sign me up for that rate. Haven't seen that family rate myself for 20 years.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

88% of full time workers in private industry have employer-provided healthcare. 

average employee-paid premium for single coverage is $150, or $600 for family. price is similar across all wage categories. 

And yet, their access to care varies widely by their level of affluence via their location, industry, and coverage. A 1.5X median wage small business employee who works in the trades in Seguin and pays $600/mo OOP almost certainly doesn’t have nearly the access to care or coverage as a tech worker in Austin who pays $600/mo OOP, makes 4X the median and works in tech.

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Newsflash: shit ain't like that anymore. Healthcare should not be tied to employment. 

Why not?  Everyone is already working, right?

and we have ACA to cover the Can'ts and won'ts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

And yet, their access to care varies widely by their level of affluence via their location, industry, and coverage. A 1.5X median wage small business employee who works in the trades in Seguin and pays $600/mo OOP almost certainly doesn’t have nearly the access to care or coverage as a tech worker in Austin who pays $600/mo OOP, makes 4X the median and works in tech.

Sounds like someone made different choices...

I'm probably an outlier, but medical coverage for my young family factored in significantly in my choice of employers.  I know that concept is totally fucking outrageous.

Edited by slorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

Damn, sign me up for that rate. Haven't seen that family rate myself for 20 years.

that was last's year govt conducted survey, sampling 13,000 establishments, sampling frame 7 million, representing 125m workers...

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, slorch said:

Why not?  Everyone is already working, right?

and we have ACA to cover the Can'ts and won'ts.

Lots of employers intentionally give employees 32 hours weekly specifically so they don't qualify for benefits and are forced to the ACA marketplace - which is not a magical "fix everything and give coverage to everyone" solution as you are framing it. It's just another place to buy an insurance plan from an insurance company that exists only to stand between you and your care

Edited by Captainant
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Lots of employers intentionally give employees 32 hours weekly specifically so they don't qualify for benefits and are forced to the ACA marketplace - which is not a magical "fox everything and give coverage to everyone" solution as you are framing it. It's just another place to buy an insurance plan from an insurance company that exists only to stand between you and your care

LOLz.  I framed it?

It's reality bro.  You want equal results for everyone.  Equal misery. I disagree.

You know when the last time I averaged 32 hours of work in a week?  Seriously at age  16 or so.

 

Now let's talk "framing" of an argument and discuss what grown ass adults should be doing, or making decisions around.  You want to work part time, then that's how the comp works.

Edited by slorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

And yet, their access to care varies widely by their level of affluence via their location, industry, and coverage. A 1.5X median wage small business employee who works in the trades in Seguin and pays $600/mo OOP almost certainly doesn’t have nearly the access to care or coverage as a tech worker in Austin who pays $600/mo OOP, makes 4X the median and works in tech.

The 50-75th wage percentile employee has total premium contribution of $1245 from employer and $640 OOP = $1885

The 90-100th wage percentile employee has total premium contribution of $1350 from employer and $600 OOP = $1950

That doesn't assure me that one party is getting the Platinum Coverage and the other a Barebones Special.  Not if they cost basically the same.  The larger employer may have leverage to get a better discount for the $, but that's something you gotta prove.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, slorch said:

LOLz.  I framed it?

It's reality bro.  You want equal results for everyone.  Equal misery. I disagree.

I want equal access and opportunity. What people do with it is their choice. 

But once again, I must point out that you are lying and putting words in my mouth. I have never once said that. You and the rest of the businessbrainbois have repeated that to each other enough that you've conviced yourself that it's true.

You should really work on not lying and misrepresenting people as a matter of course. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you wanna say that there's no John Hopkins educated Cardiac surgeon working in the city of Seguin, sure... but what is the representative medical plan and cost for the SMB employee thats inequal to the one for the Dell employees?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Trust me. Nothing about my views on American healthcare or anything involving the exchange of money for goods and services is Pollyannish. 
But when it comes to primary care, Amazon can’t do worse than what we’ve got, because economies of scale work.  I’ve got no illusions about the potential downsides, they are already with us.

So far at One Medical everyone has seemed less stressed out, and far more patient centered. He me of the docs told me they liked it because he “just just practices medicine here.”

Isnt that right across the Lincoln Tunnel? 

It is. Only one stop across. She has a waterfront apartment last I remember. She grew up in Jersey from the time her parents moved the family from Nigeria to the US when she was 7. She still has one of the best stories I’ve ever heard about being an undocumented immigrant and not realizing it until she needed to apply for college.
 

Work wise she was completely stressed by her old job that she was at for several years. Loved the patients she had, but the stress of pushing people in and out so quickly wore on her a whole bunch it seemed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, slorch said:

LOLz.  I framed it?

It's reality bro.  You want equal results for everyone.  Equal misery. I disagree.

You know when the last time I averaged 32 hours of work in a week?  Seriously at age  16 or so.

 

Now let's talk "framing" of an argument and discuss what grown ass adults should be doing, or making decisions around.  You want to work part time, then that's how the comp works.

theres no discussing grown ass adult stuff with a mental adolescent. 

108 million of the 133 working people over age of 25 work 35+ hours weekly.  Of the remaining 19%, 17% work part-time by choice.

Only 2.2% of them work under 35 hours for "economic reasons", meaning they seek full-time employment.

average-hours-employed-p(1).png

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

that was last's year govt conducted survey, sampling 13,000 establishments, sampling frame 7 million, representing 125m workers...

I guess I'm not average and don't have an average health plan, not that your data takes coverage into account anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

The 50-75th wage percentile employee has total premium contribution of $1245 from employer and $640 OOP = $1885

The 90-100th wage percentile employee has total premium contribution of $1350 from employer and $600 OOP = $1950

That doesn't assure me that one party is getting the Platinum Coverage and the other a Barebones Special.  Not if they cost basically the same.  The larger employer may have leverage to get a better discount for the $, but that's something you gotta prove.

5% greater premiums on top of a larger and more diverse risk pool of younger, more affluent and healthier workers with better access to preventative care and specialty care is likely a HUGE actuarial  advantage.
That said, those (higher income) workers are more often than not enrolled in high deductible plans with much lower premiums, which almost always guarantees them lower total OOP costs and better coverage, because they aren’t prepaying the first 5-6k so there’s no vig.

as it happens, that’s by biggest issue with ACA- it cut carriers in on things like vax and routine checkups, which you simply shouldn’t buy insurance for unless you are living check to check. Obviously that’s more the exception than the rule, but still. 

It simply costs more to make less. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

I guess I'm not average and don't have an average health plan, not that your data takes coverage into account anyway.

you can infer the coverage of a plan based on the cost of the plan.  (its not as if aetna isnt competing against humana competing against centene competing against kaiser...)

the govt use averages and other statistical measures to understand representation of large populations and make decisions.  if they had to digest your individual plan from A to Z and do that for 300 million other people, i dont think they'd get anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

5% greater premiums on top of a larger and more diverse risk pool of younger, more affluent and healthier workers with better access to preventative care and specialty care is likely a HUGE actuarial  advantage.
That said, those (higher income) workers are more often than not enrolled in high deductible plans with much lower premiums, which almost always guarantees them lower total OOP costs and better coverage, because they aren’t prepaying the first 5-6k so there’s no vig.

It simply costs more to make less. 

median age in software publishing is 41, computer systems 41, scientific and technical consulting services 44, data processing 39.  superclass of industries called 'information' is 42.  median age of ALL workers everywhere is 42. 

in a single tech company, im guessing the 40 year old secretary gets the same healthcare plan as the 25 year old SWE and the 55 year old sysadmin?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

Lots of employers intentionally give employees 32 hours weekly specifically so they don't qualify for benefits and are forced to the ACA marketplace - which is not a magical "fox everything and give coverage to everyone" solution as you are framing it. It's just another place to buy an insurance plan from an insurance company that exists only to stand between you and your care

 

1 hour ago, slorch said:

LOLz.  I framed it?

It's reality bro.  You want equal results for everyone.  Equal misery. I disagree.

You know when the last time I averaged 32 hours of work in a week?  Seriously at age  16 or so.

 

Now let's talk "framing" of an argument and discuss what grown ass adults should be doing, or making decisions around.  You want to work part time, then that's how the comp works.

There are literally swaths of companies that cap people to prevent them from benefits. It's a science. Some of you guys are Neanderthals, out of touch with the times. Companies no do what they can to prevent that as well as OT. Moose out front. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
49 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

in a single tech company, im guessing the 40 year old secretary gets the same healthcare plan as the 25 year old SWE and the 55 year old sysadmin?

Unlikely- the 25yo would likely choose an HDHP because the premiums are lower, the the secretary would take the pop to manage cash flow and  the sysadmin would likely take the ppo and then lecture everyone about how HDHPs are a “ripoff” because he didn’t bother to think through the data and relies on assumptions he made 25 years ago, before pivoting to a diatribe about how BSD is the only real Unix. 

Meanwhile by paying higher premiums the two older workers are delivering profit to the carrier and the 25 year old is improving the overall risk of the pool, along with the secretary and the secretary‘s kids, which means the 55YO pays less. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

 

There are literally swaths of companies that cap people to prevent them from benefits. It's a science. Some of you guys are Neanderthals, out of touch with the times. Companies no do what they can to prevent that as well as OT. Moose out front. 

Guess what I do if my employer limits my hours to 32 or less?

Hint:  Not just sit there like a fucking victim.  Stop acting as if it's a one way relationship.  Is that how much control you have over your life? "Well furk, Edith.  WidgetsUSA cut my hours to 30.  That's all I can do now..."

Edited by slorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, slorch said:

Guess what I do if my employer limits my hours to 32 or less?

Hint:  Not just sit there like a fucking victim.

The median wage earner (according to 52-80, earning $15/hr for 41k/yr income) would usually have to take a second job, which also doesn't give full time hours. And neither job schedules you with more than a few days notice. A good friend of mine from way back has made a habit of fucking up and is stuck in that phase of working hourly jobs, and the cold truth is there's just not much out there that offers full hours and benefits

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

The median wage earner (according to 52-80, earning $15/hr for 41k/yr income) would usually have to take a second job, which also doesn't give full time hours. And neither job schedules you with more than a few days notice. A good friend of mine from way back has made a habit of fucking up and is stuck in that phase of working hourly jobs, and the cold truth is there's just not much out there that offers full hours and benefits

I know of a place that exists across America and  beginning pay is $55k plus full bennies, and there have been pretty much constant openings since Covid.  You're gonna work your ass off, but the pay and benefits are great, but spare me the underemployment bullshit.

If you want to make it happen, you will.  If you're looking for an excuse, that's readily available too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Btw- it’s not just about size. Employers that are willing to self-insure (iow, the employer puts up capital to cover the risk), have an attractive risk pool and do a good job of educating their employees how to use insurance* have enormous leverage negotiating for coverage. I worked for a midsize, growing tech company in Austin and my premiums declined while coverage improved from 2013-2021 when I left.  

*for example- how to maximize RX spending and to go to urgent care rather than deceptive free standing  “emergency rooms” unless it’s a true life threatening emergency and there is literally no other option. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 52-80 said:

theres no discussing grown ass adult stuff with a mental adolescent. 

Yes, we should all strive for the ability to take into account complexity and nuance in adult conversations like [checks notes]...slorch.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, slorch said:

Guess what I do if my employer limits my hours to 32 or less?

Hint:  Not just sit there like a fucking victim.  Stop acting as if it's a one way relationship.  Is that how much control you have over your life? "Well furk, Edith.  WidgetsUSA cut my hours to 30.  That's all I can do now..."

 

10 minutes ago, Captainant said:

The median wage earner (according to 52-80, earning $15/hr for 41k/yr income) would usually have to take a second job, which also doesn't give full time hours. And neither job schedules you with more than a few days notice. A good friend of mine from way back has made a habit of fucking up and is stuck in that phase of working hourly jobs, and the cold truth is there's just not much out there that offers full hours and benefits

This is the business model that a lot of companies that employ hourly are rolling with. Hard workers go and get a second job. Companies are no longer in the mindset of giving away anything. Newsflash, they also are pushing experienced people out in favor of younger people they can pay less to do the same work. Welcome to 24 Slorch. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

 

This is the business model that a lot of companies that employ hourly are rolling with. Hard workers go and get a second job. Companies are no longer in the mindset of giving away anything. Newsflash, they also are pushing experienced people out in favor of younger people they can pay less to do the same work. Welcome to 24 Slorch. 

LOlz.  I am 54.  None of this ever occurred to me.  But to be fair, a noob can't do what I do, so there's that piece too.  23 YO Slorch couldn't do what 54 YO Slorch does.  Not even close.

Companies give away nothing.  Neither does labor.  You had better be competitive on both fronts.

Edited by slorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, slorch said:

LOlz.  I am 54.  None of this ever occurred to me.  But to be fair, a noob can't do what I do, so there's that piece too.  23 YO Slorch couldn't do what 54 YO Slorch does.  Not even close.

Companies give away nothing.  Neither does labor.  You had better be competitive on both fronts.

This just isn't true and hasn't been true in a long time. Americans aren't some magical creatures that are productive, they are people that live in a country that has allowed global monopolies that are unchecked and the people need to be employed to prop up the machine. 

A lot of people don't realize that employment isn't because they need people to do the work, it's because they need people to pay and those people to use their money to buy stuff. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, immamac said:

This just isn't true and hasn't been true in a long time. Americans aren't some magical creatures that are productive, they are people that live in a country that has allowed global monopolies that are unchecked and the people need to be employed to prop up the machine. 

A lot of people don't realize that employment isn't because they need people to do the work, it's because they need people to pay and those people to use their money to buy stuff. 

What I posted is absolutely true.  If the robots could do it, they already would be.  In my field in particular, there is very little fluff with regard to staffing.  In fact with the consistent growth, finding productive people is at a premium. 

It ain't just fucking magic/ moving money around in our industry. You make it sound like everyone gets it  done with a crew of Miltons.  

Edited by slorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Unlikely- the 25yo would likely choose an HDHP because the premiums are lower, the the secretary would take the pop to manage cash flow and  the sysadmin would likely take the ppo and then lecture everyone about how HDHPs are a “ripoff” because he didn’t bother to think through the data and relies on assumptions he made 25 years ago, before pivoting to a diatribe about how BSD is the only real Unix. 

BSD guy sounds like he wears cargos. fyi i meant what plans are offered the employees, which is what was surveyed, and which dont discriminate based on class of employees  

 

42 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

There are literally swaths of companies that cap people to prevent them from benefits. It's a science. Some of you guys are Neanderthals, out of touch with the times. Companies no do what they can to prevent that as well as OT. Moose out front. 

Swathes of them affecting…all of 2.2% of workers*?

Can the moose show us that science?

*“Involuntary part-time workers want full-time work but work part time because of slack business conditions or because they only found part-time jobs.” -from the Current Population Survey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

This is where we disagree. Labor gives away WAY too much. 

Then negotiate better.

or change your employer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

Swathes of them affecting…all of 2.2% of workers*?

Can the moose show us that science?

*“Involuntary part-time workers want full-time work but work part time because of slack business conditions or because they only found part-time jobs.” -from the Current Population Survey

It would be much more helpful to the discussion if you provided citations to your assertions and links to your sources rather than just screenshots and your paraphrasing.

 

But I know you're not here to discuss and just want to threadshit so people won't discuss enshittening, so carry on I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

This is where we disagree. Labor gives away WAY too much. 

Why dont other greedy companies come in and scoop up this undervalued labor then?
Does the unemployment rate show an employers market or a workers market?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

It would be much more helpful to the discussion if you provided citations to your assertions and links to your sources rather than just screenshots and your paraphrasing.

The issue is probably that all of your assertions are so thoroughly documented with citations and links that..... oh wait.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 52-80 said:

Why dont other greedy companies come in and scoop up this undervalued labor then?

They don't have to do so.  They have a protected cartel of employers who don't have to worry about labor actually organizing and doing something about it, courtesy of decades of laws making unionization and union activity a huge uphill climb.  Once you've legally squashed the practical ability of labor to organize and use their collective negotiating power, all employers get to sit back and enjoy the fruits of their effort: cheap labor that can't organize to do shit about the situation.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

The issue is probably that all of your assertions are so thoroughly documented with citations and links that..... oh wait.

I don't think I've really made many assertions in this thread since it's been primarily discussion on agreed upon facts and microeconomic gripes of the quality of everything going down while the price goes up. In other threads where I'm asserting things I absolutely cite whenever possible and I'd argue that I'm pretty thorough in doing so. If you have an actual example to show me and not just your emotion and feelings, I'm happy to be correct and try to do better.

I guess I just don't get why you're posting in this thread, aside from being 52-80's Salacious Crumb 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

They have a protected cartel of employers

What?

The last 3-4 years have been a gigantic poachfest of employers knife fighting each other for labor. $7000 sign on bonus out front should have told ya.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, slorch said:

What I posted is absolutely true.  If the robots could do it, they already would be.  In my field in particular, there is very little fluff with regard to staffing.  In fact with the consistent growth, finding productive people is at a premium.  It ain't just fucking magic/ moving money around in our industry.

That's not true at all. I have been a part of many initiatives that make people's jobs completely obsolete and unecessary and employers chose to keep paying high salaries because why the fuck not. Finding productive people isn't a premium, no one gives a shit anymore because they don't have to because what you posted is the opposite of true. There are so many "lazy girl jobs" that it's actually insane. There are TONS of white collar low value jobs. Blue collar work or labor intensive work may be true if there was a robot to do it they'd hire that, but shockingly robots are more expensive than people for labor. For complex tasks that require a human brain level to do them in an non-deterministic way there's only one thing you can do and that's hire a person. Is AI trying to do away with these shit jobs in corporate? Yeah, but AI is actually surprisingly shitty at stuff that's easy for even a dumb human to do. 

Your field is a fucking microcosm at best and you are probably still wrong about it because you are being an obtuse jackass instead of a realist. Corporate inefficiency is at an all time high in the US and it's partly because none of the companies are actually doing anything but going through the motions and have entrenched monopolies they can't be displaced from. It literally has more to do with the macro economy not being able to survive if only rich people got paid than it does for fair wages or whatever, which is why corps don't give a single fuck about employee satisfaction. 

The idea of "if you hate your job, then leave" is absolutely true. Some people just don't hate their job, they just don't like it so they are fine to just drone and collect their paycheck for doing nothing and adding next to no value. 

8 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

Why dont other greedy companies come in and scoop up this undervalued labor then?
Does the unemployment rate show an employers market or a workers market?

They do, and they did. When people could go full remote there was a huge movement of jobs and everyone got massive raises. The fuck are you talking about? It's like you live under a rock or something. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

well there it is all right GIF
 

settled science so to speak 

I appreciate your continued pattern of never actually specifically taking issue with anything, and just generally disagreeing while lying about what I've posted. You must make your parents so proud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Switching gears to something more important :); the new and “improved” Big Macs are an absolute abomination. The new brioche bun on paper sounds tasty but is a soft mess that doesn’t hold the burger together. They have added so much extra special sauce, lettuce and pickles that literally my first three bites into it last night was just those items. Hey dickheads, how about making thicker and juicier patties. That’s a good start place to improve your shitty burgers.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the most terrible hamburger offerings in the world managed to get worse?

 

Does that move the needle?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, immamac said:

They do, and they did. When people could go full remote there was a huge movement of jobs and everyone got massive raises. The fuck are you talking about? It's like you live under a rock or something. 

What exactly did you think my point was? vs Briskets or Hayden? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...