Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (10092)	10/5/2009 10:22:54 AM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Bottom line is inflation has gone up more than wages... a net decline in standard of living. No Social Security COLA increase for 2010 Joseph LazzaroJoseph Lazzaro RSS Feed May 8th 2009 at 2:15PM If investors need another sign of the changed economic landscape, they need look no further than Social Security. For the first time in more than three decades Social Security recipients will not receive a benefit increase, formally known as a cost of living adjustment (COLA), in 2010, federal forecasts show, The New York Times reports. COLA is determined by a formula set by federal law, and it roughly parallels the consumer price index, though the two formulas are not identical. Senior citizens can get a ballpark estimate of their likely annual benefit increase from the consumer price index's rise. Once cost increases reach a certain level, or threshold, the COLA is triggered for Social Security. The fiscal 2009 increase was 5.9 percent, and there's been a Social Security COLA every year since 1975. No inflation, no COLA However, both the Obama administration and the Congressional Budget Office (pdf) are forecasting that Social Security beneficiaries will not receive any cost of living adjustments in fiscal 2010 or 2011. The reason? The pronounced recession in the United States, which has created pricing pressure -- not pricing power -- for businesses. Pricing power is so weak for firms that the Federal Reserve believes the nation is more likely to experience a bout of deflation -- not inflation -- at least through mid-2010, and perhaps for a longer period. Deflation -- a protracted, systematic decline in prices and wages -- occurs in pronounced recessions and in other conditions during which demand is nonexistent, and it robs companies of the ability to increase revenue and hurts the economy's ability to grow. If it takes hold, that's another hurdle policymakers will have to grapple with as they attempt to end the U.S. and global recessions. The lack of a COLA adjustment would represent a net-gain in revenue for the Social Security operation, although there will be some subtractions to revenue, due to the fact that Medicare Part B premium increases are linked to Social Security's COLA and cannot rise more than the COLA. Hence, if there is no COLA, the Part B premium can not increase. However, the lack of a benefit would also feed fewer dollars into the U.S. economy at a time when it needs all the demand pressure it can get, due to a smaller workforce stemming from layoffs and belt-tightening across the nation, senior citizens included. Economic Analysis: The net result of no 2010 COLA is that millions of Social Security recipients will see their monthly benefit check reduced for the first time. Though the amount would be small, it represents another incremental reduction in income -- like a small increase in an electric utility rate or a small property tax increase -- that reduces the amount of money Americans have to spend, save, or invest. When combined, these incremental cuts place a substantial drag on the economy and are one major factor cause of the declines in retail sales and discretionary purchases. Further, there's virtually no chance that Congress will revisit the COLA formula. The COLA stems from a grand political consensus that took years to negotiate and forge, and that fact, combined with the generation redistribution that already occurs under Social Security (the system redistributes income from younger generations to older generations), all point to lawmakers letting the inflation protection work as designed.

To: Road Walker who wrote (10092)	10/5/2009 10:26:47 AM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

a net decline in standard of living. This is a ridiculous statement. While there are some in this country living in abject poverty, the number is small compared with 20 or 30 years ago (perhaps 10% of those who are classified by the census bureau as "poor"). There Heritage Foundation found the following -- * Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio. * Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning. * Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person. * The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.) * Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars. * Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions. * Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception. * Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher. "Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians."

To: Road Walker who wrote (10092)	10/5/2009 10:57:20 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Ridiculous assertion. What percentage of the poor had phones thirty or forty years ago? Not just families, but people? What percentage had access to more than four or five TV channels? Multiple cars per household? etc. The standard of living for America's poorest has consistently improved over the last 100, 50 , 25 and 10 years. Bottom line is inflation has gone up more than wages... a net decline in standard of living. It is certainly true that increases in minimum wages do cause those least qualified to loose their jobs. This causes an increase in unemployment which most affects the youth and the poor.