[millipede]

There's a great graph showing the wages stagnating compared to GDP growth. It looks like wage's haven't gone up. But, when adding back in employer provided health coverage and other benefits, the graphs align again. It just wasn't in dollars. TFA briefly mentions it but I think it should be front and center.

[temp0826]

Without digging in to details that's an interesting thought. If modern american healthcare costs were to (magically) get under control, would wages become reasonable (per other living expenses) again?

[gruez]

Obvious point of comparison would be against other countries, that don't have a broken healthcare system.

[trod1234]

GDP is a really poor measure of activity. It can be concentrated in a single entity, and retain the same values. It also doesn't account properly for money-printing.

[SilasX]

That feels like sleight-of-hand though.

Previously (example numbers): Median compensation is $55k + health insurance.

After: Median compensation is $55k + health insurance.

"So nothing changed?"

"Wrong! Health insurance costs more for the same benefits, so really, you got a raise!"

Yeah, sorry if I'm not celebrating.

[JackYoustra]

The point is that there's enormously different implications. If comp stagnates less than productivity then you have a huge bargaining problem.

If comp keeps pace with productivity but is all eaten up by healthcare costs, either something caused people to willingly spend much more of their money on healthcare costs than they'd do earlier (aging maybe? obesity maybe?) or something is going crazy with healthcare expenses.

I've heard persuasive evidence that if you control for obesity the costs look ok actually.

[apercu]

> "Wrong! Health insurance costs more for the same benefits, so really, you got a raise!"

It's even worse than that, health insurance costs more for less benefits.

[HDThoreaun]

Your boss is still paying you more. You dont see it, but they definitely do.

[madh]

https://old.reddit.com/r/WorkReform/comments/1jkoyp2/uline_c...

[Buttons840]

What you've described is worse than flat wages.

The business-owner class benefits from the health system, because the business-owners are the gatekeepers of healthcare (typically, people get healthcare only through their employer). The worker class is less likely to benefit from the free part of the "free market" because their healthcare is tied to their employer; it's just harder to do anything except work a typical 9-to-5 for the benefit of a business-owner.

The healthcare industry also benefits because they get to suck up a large portion of the GDP; trillions of dollars.

So wages aren't only flat, but the wage growth that should have happened instead went into a corrupt system. Wages aren't honestly flat because of natural market forces, they are corruptly flat.

[mbrumlow]

> The business-owner class benefits from the health system,

That is a new argument, coming from health care is a right and good for society?

It’s kinda crazy you want to dismiss this simply because it benefits some group of people you don’t like.

In any se your argument is this is worse. And I argue this is good, fair and meritocratic , and sustainable.

While the USA has wealth, you can simply expand your idea beyond the walked garden of a single country and to the world stage. There is no way with today’s tech and cost of labor could we ever give free health care to everybody. World wide there are far more people who exist, than people who exist and contribute back to society.

The dream of unlimited free healthcare can only be archived once > 90% of humans are producing more than they consume, which war are no where near even in the richest of rich, the USA.