Hypothetical: How would you improve the welfare system for families?

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

DarkLight:

The point is that if transportation systems are bad and don’t take people where they need to go, or take a huge amount of time to go between 2 spots (around here it’s about 2h via public transit to go the distance of a 15min car ride), people won’t use them. That doesn’t mean people wouldn’t use it if it worked for them.

I agree with your criticism, but I don’t think it’s fixed with more money, it’s fixed by a change in strategy and planning. In my city they have huge double length buses that lumber along, stopping every couple blocks and usually blocking traffic while they do so. The system is horribly inefficient in my perspective.

I’ve used the systems in several asian countries where the traffic was worse but the buses much faster. The big buses ran the main routes with few stops while smaller buses worked as feeders, they were quick and didn’t block traffic.

The problem is that we don’t have the population density of other countries. One of the best transit systems is in Tokyo, with 6,158 people per square kilometer only about 15 cities in the US meet that…and the vast majority of those are part of the NYC metro area.

In Europe, the population density is also quite high overall. The vast majority of US states have a population density of less than 100 people per square kilo. About half are less than 50 per square kilo. Compare that to all of Europe where most are well over 100 with a few being over 50 and just a handful under. There are 15 states with less than 20 people per sq kilo (affecting about 50-70 million people), but only 3 countries in Europe (who don’t even total a million).

As a fun note, in the US Alaska literally has a population density of zero people per square kilo (one per mile).

 

[Theo520]

The problem is that we don’t have the population density of other countries.

I think that is a factor, but not an excuse. The big buses in HK don’t stop traffic, nor do they stop every two blocks. A greater distance between stops can really speed up the bus route.

The buses in my city are double length and usually 3/4 empty. A smaller bus for many routes would be much faster, more agile, and thus give more frequent service at a lower cost.

Many simple things could be done to speed up the routes, which would then lead to more people willing to take the bus.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Xanthippe_Voorhees:

The problem is that we don’t have the population density of other countries.

I think that is a factor, but not an excuse. The big buses in HK don’t stop traffic, nor do they stop every two blocks. A greater distance between stops can really speed up the bus route.

The buses in my city are double length and usually 3/4 empty. A smaller bus for many routes would be much faster, more agile, and thus give more frequent service at a lower cost.

Many simple things could be done to speed up the routes, which would then lead to more people willing to take the bus.

My point is that no matter how much most US cities try to improve they will always have the odds stacked against them.

Sprinter vans could help but they will not address the primary obstacle that enables a efficient transit system. My guess is that bus was purchased second hand for cheap without much foresight into its overall fit.

There is also the issue of drivers, the most expensive part of the equation. driverless cars are going to change the face of rural America “public transport”

 

[Theo520]

My guess is that bus was purchased second hand for cheap without much foresight into its overall fit.

There is also the issue of drivers, the most expensive part of the equation. driverless cars are going to change the face of rural America “public transport”

This is Seattle, all the buses are new and expensive
Yes, driver-less buses will revolutionize public transport, very good point to bring up.

 

[Angel_Bradford]

Why is that?

 

[DarkLight]

Where I live is fairly standard. To start, I’d have to pay $200 more a month to live close enough to work that there is even a bus at all. I know in town, the buses run once an hour, which means it’s pretty much going to take you 2 hours to get between one spot and another unless they’re both on the same line (rare, as the same bus usually doesn’t serve both residential and work areas). That can be prohibitive if you need to do anything else in your day other than work, like pick up a kid or buy groceries. There are also very limited hours, more limited on saturdays and nothing on sundays - generally I’ve found that’s not acceptable to entry level jobs, you must be available evenings and weekends.

The problem isn’t the costs of public transit, it’s that the transit doesn’t get you where you need to go when you need to be there.

 

[RCIAGraduate]

Hey Q, I know it’s been awhile but I wanted to post my reply. I definitely agree with both issues and while promoting marriage seems easier said than done (public policy can only do so much), I definitely believe that the loss of community ties and a sense of community is an issue that should be confronted. Do you have any ideas, one interesting idea I found was the concept of inter-generational communities. One model that I find interesting is Generations of Hope, from what I read, they offer affordable housing for seniors in exchange for community service with a disadvantaged population (i.e adoptive families, disabled, veterans).

IF I may ask, do you have any ideas on how to help possible revitalize and bring back a social ties and a sense of community?

 

[Rozellelily]

Somehow reduce the costs of living?
Encourage Australian/US etc “individualistic” societies to change to a more European model where families and neighbors help each other instead of a reliance on Child care facilities.
Personally I would also be like Robin Hood and take from the rich and give to the poor-Is:I would reduce the salaries of very high paid occupations such as CEOS,CFOs,Surgeons and Psychiatrists and use that pay cut to increase the wages of low paid and undervalued occupations such as Carers,Nurses and manufacturing workers.

 

[RCIAGraduate]

Not to sound rude or offensive, but are you referring to Europe’s generous welfare state or more of a cultural trend/tradition (which technically could drive political trends such as increased support for social programming)? Do Europeans have a more community-minded culture akin to the collectivist mindset within many East Asian nations?

Your Robin Hood proposal sounds a bit polarizing but would sound more palatable and sensible if phrased more so like adjusting the tax code to have the wealthy and upper class pay more in taxes and perhaps use the revenues to fund relief and support for the poor, perhaps lowering living costs by defraying it through subsidies like food vouchers, housing assistance, low-cost if not free health coverage, child care assistance or other social programming.

I don’t know about Australia but I wouldn’t necessarily discount America, there is giving and volunteerism, it’s not perfect but it’s there.

 

[Rozellelily]

Sorry,I should have made it more clearer.Im referring to cultural tradition.
My background is Croatian and it is termed approximately 70% collectivist and 30 % individualist and grandparents or even neighbors will look after the children and likewise families will often look after aging parents.
I’m living though in Australia which explains my Australia reference.

The adjusting tax codes that you mentioned sounds much more realistic and with more potential to be accepted that the way I phrased it
In Australia there already is free health care (free doesn’t necessarily mean quality though) for people who afford private health care and there are already childcare subsidies.
What I would like to see though is a shift from the mentality of overvaluing certain “high skill jobs” and undervaluing certain “high labour jobs”.
Who is it that ultimately decides that CEOs or Psychiatrists for example should be paid such huge amounts while aged carers for example such low amounts?
Very high paid workers drive expensive cars,go on numerous holidays,and live in multimillion dollar houses etc while low paid workers just struggle to keep afloat.
It would be great to see societies mentalities shift to value people and occupations that are caring for/about other people-eg:carers,aged care workers,teachers…

It’s interesting that often jobs that may have traditionally been referred to as feminine jobs are usually paid less than jobs traditionally thought as masculine.

 

[abucs]

It is good to see Americans trying to solve their countries’ own problems.

Nobody is advocating moving welfare recipients to Mexico, or Canada or Norway. That is a healthy and ethical state of mind. It is also a nationalistic state of mind which is a great strength,

I think people themselves on the ground are better at solving these problems than an army of highly paid government civil servants receiving workers wealth.

Perhaps one solution is to cut red tape for small businesses and drop the business tax rate for the first $300,000 profit to something like 5%.

I also like the comment above about finding ways to strengthen marriage and keep people together. Practically this will make a tremendous difference and help society be more able to help the much smaller number of cases of dependency that will arise.

 

[abucs]

Personally I would also be like Robin Hood and take from the rich and give to the poor-Is:I would reduce the salaries of very high paid occupations such as CEOS,CFOs,Surgeons and Psychiatrists and use that pay cut to increase the wages of low paid and undervalued occupations such as Carers,Nurses and manufacturing workers.

There are roughly 365,000 nurses and 4000 surgeons in Australia,

To give each nurse a raise of $5000 you would need just short of $2 billion.
You would have to take $450,000 a year off every surgeons to do that.

You would have to have large government control extending even more into private medical businesses to do that.

I think it is ultimately detrimental for a government to have control of people’s wages in private industry. It would destroy capitalism to everyone’s detriment.

(on the other hand I think there is a case for looking at the wages of CEO’s of ‘certain’ companies. Like politicians, they can become a law unto themselves in deciding to give themselves other people’s wealth).

 

[Rozellelily]

What about though instead taxing them much higher and then using that money to increase the wages of disability carers,nurses etc?

The average backbencher earns roughly $195,000 and some Psychiatrists earn as much as $370,000 yearly.
This to me seems like a gross injustice when you compare that an Disability Care worker can earn approx $30 an hour and a Psychiatrist can charge up to $300 a hour.

Are they doing something in that hour to merit earning $300?
I don’t think they are.
Personally I believe they should be paid according to “patient satisfaction” and possibly the same should happen for other medical specialties too.

Regarding backbenchers,I’m not sure whether they earn this wage justly either.Much of the time they seem to sit in parliament just arguing back and forth like children.

 

[abucs]

Personally I believe they should be paid according to “patient satisfaction” and possibly the same should happen for other medical specialties too.

This is the crux of the matter between capitalist and socialist mindsets.

The capitalist mindset creates more wealth and is better able to help everyone.

I live in the Philippines where nurses are not paid very much. They are not paid very much because business here is not as good at generating wealth than long standing capitalist countries. The government can only take its wealth (to pay nurses) from businesses that create wealth.

To make things better for people you have to enable wealth creation. There is no other way. It creates inequity but inequity is not a sin.

In the example above you would be taxing surgeons more than another $450,000 a year to pay for a $5000 increase to nurses wages.

Ignoring the simple fact that this is theft, and state forced theft at that, it will be detrimental to the number and quality of surgeons and this will reduce health care outcomes for patients. It would also create a very bad precedent and ripple across society leading to less generated wealth. You would become more like the Philippines whereas we are trying to be more like you.

If you want more wealth transferred to nurses, policemen, teachers etc then you have to strongly support wealth creation in business. That is you have to be strongly right wing in your politics.

Taking it off others as a solution is both immoral and self defeating.

(As said previously, there is a different case for CEO’s and politicians because (in general) they are in control of money that does not belong to them. They need to be regulated in my opinion).

 

[abucs]

If you wanted to reduce health costs then you could increase the numbers of surgeons and nurses.

But it costs about a $1 million to train a surgeon in Australia (I have an Australian background).

So to double the number of surgeons the government would have to spend $4 billion in training more surgeons (probably more because you would have to upscale facilities).

That is $4 billion transferred from wealth creating people to train surgeons. Is it worth it?

Maybe if it lowers health costs but then if you are going to control surgeon wages as well they will go overseas and you get into the situation of workers being slugged an extra $4 billion a year to provide surgeons for overseas and not get any medical benefit themselves.

When government starts to dictate things in the economy it tends to go very badly and because it’s only source of wealth is to take it off others, a big government tends to mean more injustice for people who are forced to pay for it.

Again this is a difference in mindset. There is a simple temptation to think, I work hard, I should have it, the government should take it off you and give it to me, but that thinking in reality is disastrous IMHO.

 

[Rozellelily]

I think you are right about wealth creation.

What I consider theft though,actually extortion and exploitation,is Psychiatrists (for example) charging their patients (who often live on the poverty line) up to $300 an hour.
That to me is a much greater theft and more immoral than the government taxing high income earners more.
They are able to do this because they can set their own wages/fees and due to the high patient demand over supply as there are much more patients that Psychiatrists.
This to me is exploitation because the patients have no choice to pay-regardless of whether they recieve quality treatment in the end or not-because they have no other options where to go.

Surgeons are not much better,but in least in their cases,there is a measurable outcome.
Ie:if they just “open up the patient” and don’t remove the tumor or “slim the nose” (in the case of plastic surgeons) then they likely won’t be practicing much longer.

Governments need to give different incentives than money to attract people into psychiatry or surgery etc.
This just seems to attract the wrong sort of people-ie:the greedy.
It seems to me a great injustice to support a system that makes it that some can afford to go on countless overseas holidays but others can never even afford one local holiday.

If you want more wealth transferred to nurses, policemen, teachers etc then you have to strongly support wealth creation in business

What you are referring to here seems like what is referred to here as the “trickle down effect”?
Some people believe generating more wealth will trickle down to the poorer occupations but other people state this doesn’t really work so I don’t know who’s correct?

I believe that the haves have a responsibility to help the have nots but this isn’t happening in many instances.
Is capitalism the full answer if many of these wealthy people are going on many overseas trips and spending their money there -then it doesn’t help to build own countries economy and help the poorer people.

Personally I can’t see in which way it is different for a politician then for a surgeon or psychiatrist because here in Australia they are both paid a wage.

 

[Rozellelily]

Maybe it is an issue though if it is costing $1 million dollars to train each surgeon.
To be frank,there are numerous things that are taught in Uni that are just unnecessary and push the costs of Uni fees higher than they should be.
Maybe there’s a way to overhaul the training system to make it more “lean”?

At the same time,to reduce health care costs there needs to much much greater focus on preventative health imo.

Maybe the trainees could be forced to sign a contract stating that they will working Australia for at least 10 years?
Sure,it might sound like a dictatorship but much of our lives is already a dictatorship.

 

[abucs]

Yes but also supply and demand. If more people don’t use surgeons and psychiatrists then they are forced to drop their prices. Of course there is a limit. There is a business reality in that there is a certain cost involved.

I would like to see the church (or church groups) step in and provide substitutes “psychiatric” services. A lot of problems people have could be solved by a sympathetic and understanding community around them who they can rely on. The churches moral teaching could help here as well but here we get into a conflict with aggressive secular government that sometimes wants to outlaw modes of thoughts not compatible with its own.

As you say psychiatrists charging $300 an hour to people in need but who can’t afford it is a problem crying out for a solution.

I don’t like government pro-active permanent control to solve problems but things like supporting the capitalist system is needed. So in some professions, wages are kept high because there are strong barriers to entry through control of numbers admitted to associations or the numbers allowed to be educated in such fields. A capitalist solution would allow people to perform duties (accepting they are good enough) and combatting associations keeping wages high by barring competitors.

I think the ‘trickle down effect’ is a derogatory term. In reality it is a ‘cascade across’ effect. That is as industry is freed up and more people participate more wealth is created. I was a teacher in Australia for a number of years. I heard quite often teachers tell each other they worked very hard and deserve more money. But the reality was that in relative terms we were paid very well, certainly compared to places like the Philippines where I can work as a teacher down the street for $7 a day. As a kindergarten teacher in some rural areas I am completely dependent on the capacity of parents to pay which as you could guess is not much. In these areas kindergarten teachers are in there temporarily, perhaps as new teachers until they can get transferred to a higher grade where the government will subsidise and they are rolling in the big bucks at $7 a day.

The reality is that public workers are completely dependent on the wealth generation of business in the private sector. If that is not strong (as in the Philippines or Venezuela) then the money is not there. In Australia the wealth creation of business has had a longer and freer tradition and so the money is there. But of course the more money one takes from the private business sector to pay for the public sector the weaker the private sector and the less ability it has to subsidise.

There is a huge difference between private workers (eg. health equipment manufacturers) and public workers (eg. politicians). One creates wealth and transfers it to the other. This is a really big thing to understand. They are both paid a salary but the one that is subsidising the other is the one at the mercy of supply and demand economics which is reality.

The other, which gets subsidised by the first has an endless supply of money (it can be printed or taken) and can bankrupt the former (as in Venezuela) unless it is severely checked.

 

[abucs]

P.S. I am not criticising public workers as I have also been one and know in general how hard they (teachers) work and the important role most public workers provide. I just think it is important to realise in general that wealth creation is driven by economical and mutually agreed supply and demand and public workers are somewhat shielded from that reality.

 

[abucs]

Maybe it is an issue though if it is costing $1 million dollars to train each surgeon.
To be frank,there are numerous things that are taught in Uni that are just unnecessary and push the costs of Uni fees higher than they should be.
Maybe there’s a way to overhaul the training system to make it more “lean”?

Yes, you could be right.

At the same time,to reduce health care costs there needs to much much greater focus on preventative health imo.

Yes agree again. My father in Sydney has lung cancer at the moment. In my experience with health professionals in Australia I have been highly impressed and thankful for the quality and professionalism of all involved. Of course they cannot help the choice of my father to have been a smoker for 40 years. That is something that we can perhaps as a community share and persuade others. As you suggest, this will have big affects on overall health costs.

Maybe the trainees could be forced to sign a contract stating that they will working Australia for at least 10 years?
Sure,it might sound like a dictatorship but much of our lives is already a dictatorship.

I think that is a fair requirement to consider.