“Pity me that the heart is slow to learn / What the swift mind beholds at every turn.”
- Edna St. Vincent Millay
The Sunday, February 24th edition of the Dayton Daily News ran an article entitled “Slumping economy is on the minds of these voters” making the argument that the state of the Ohio economy will be a significant decision maker for Ohio voters in both the primary and the general election. No doubt the economy is on the minds of these voters, and it is sad to realize that they put so much stock into the promises of a person who can do virtually nothing to change Ohio’s economy in the short term or, perhaps, even in the long term.
Ohio’s economic problem is not presidential policy so much as it is an ongoing reliance on old economy income sources in a new economy world. Ohio relies heavily on low-tech manufacturing for many of its jobs, and many Ohio politicians, unions, and workers claim that it is the export of those kinds of jobs from Ohio that has had such a dramatic effect on Ohio’s economy. From their view, a president who promises to prevent the export of such jobs cannot help but benefit Ohio.
And a president can put into place policies that prevent companies from exporting manufacturing jobs, but preventing those jobs from leaving will not make Americans buy domestically produced products. The problem with low-tech manufacturing is not one of retaining the jobs, but of producing products consumers will buy, and American low-tech manufacturing, to a great degree, is not doing that.
There are two pieces to this production problem for Ohio:
First, American low-tech manufacturing has far too high of a cost to profit ratio. Significant portions of that cost are related to wages. Frankly, in order for American companies to pay manufacturing workers what they are willing to work for, it then requires the companies to charge far more for their products than many Americans are willing to spend. Without demand, there is no need for supply, and that is a lesson that Ohio is in the painful midst of learning, as an example in domestic auto industry.
Second, American low-tech manufacturing has not embraced the developing high-tech economy. Frankly, the days of being able to graduate from high school and find a factory job that can be worked for thirty years until retirement are dwindling. The modern economy requires a higher degree of education and specialization than ever before, and low-tech manufacturing simply does not make that cut. Further, the modern economy is not one where people stay with one job, even one career, for the entirety of their working lives. As a result, continuing education and the ability to adapt to the demands of modern job availability are a must.
If Ohio needs any kind of president, then, it is a president who will invest in retooling education, taxation, and opportunities so that Ohioans can adapt to the economy that exists rather than the economy they wish would come back. Of course, that presumes that the president can affect those things either. Even better, Ohioans should invest in those things themselves, whatever the president thinks or tries to do.
Certainly, the economy is on Ohioans’ minds as they go to vote, and it is unfortunate that so many voters plan to vote for a panacea rather than a solution. Until Ohioans realize that the solution to Ohio’s economic woes lie with them, they can vote for whoever they want, the economy will remain the same.
Cross-posted from Dennis L Hitzeman’s Worldview Weblog
Posts
10 comments:
There also has to be some trade equity treaties in place. If a country isn't held to the same standards of production, either tariffs or sanctions need to be put in place.
We also have to solve the health care problem in this country. Continuing to slough off 35% of the health care dollars to a "bookie" (insurance company) isn't working.
We also need to learn how to hold an election that doesn't cost $5 billion dollars :-)
I wholeheartedly agree with the last one!
I'm not sure where I stand on trade treaties, mostly because I don't think I know enough about their complexities to comment effectively yet. I do know, however that I am completely, totally, and in every conceivably way opposed to the government being involved in providing healthcare funding for individuals.
Let me put it this way: If the government cannot effectively fund and manage a national highway system, which it arguably is tasked to do by the Constitution, then how is it going to be able to effectively fund and manage a healthcare program multiple times the size and cost?
As I see it, the current healthcare "crisis" in the United States is a result of already too much government regulation, intrusion in individual affairs, and mismanagement. The federal government has already run things so poorly that both Medicare and Social Security are going to go bankrupt, so why should we trust them to take over the whole healthcare industry?
Further, I think that Americans can't afford healthcare because the government already takes too much of their money in taxes that are then applied to inadequate, unnecessary, or failing programs that end up being a waste for everyone. If the government wants to do anything with healthcare, it should get out of the business altogether and let the free market correct the cost problem.
The fix is actually pretty simple: Let Americans contribute some portion of their pretax dollars to health savings accounts that are regulated by the loosest of federal regulations to be used for regular medical expenses and then let them receive tax credits for the purchase of private catastrophic and specialty insurance. It's a simple, elegant solution that could be applied not only to health insurance, but to Social Security as well.
The bottom line is to get the government out of regulating the individual, which it is very bad at. Any kind of universal healthcare proposal will be a disaster that will cost us for decades, if not centuries to come. Let the people take care of themselves and we won't have that kind of problem.
Dennis,
Why is it that every other industrialized nation has a national health care system?
Why is it that the US spends almost 5x more on health care than any other nation and doesn't have the healthiest people?
Why can medicare and the VA use less than 2% of the health care dollars for admin- and the private sector "solution" eats 35%?
There is a difference between paying for health care- and paying for health insurance. I'd rather give my companies $500 each month directly to doctors in exchange for health care- not insurance.
We can agree to disagree- but, the fact is, our current system lets the CEO of UHC pay himself $134 million in a year- if you think the government can screw us much worse- fine- but at least I can vote the bastards out. I can't do a damn thing about his ceo largesse.
David, I'm not saying that you don't have some valid points, rather I am saying that the answer doesn't have to be corporate insurance or government healthcare.
In fact, what I am saying is that the government could provide healthcare by making it easier for individuals to provide that healthcare for themselves. Instead of taking more taxes, or worse garnish people's wages as Senator Clinton has suggested, why not allow people to make choices for themselves in an environment that allows those choices to be made?
I'm not making this argument from a position of unawareness. I have been uninsured since 2005 and have paid 100% of my healthcare costs out of my own pocket. Further, I am not making this argument from a position of wealth: I am a full-time student and part-time Guardsman and my wife is an adjunct professor at Wright State University and Sinclair Community College.
Granted, we are both young and healthy, but we do have healthcare costs and we have chosen--I reiterate we chose--to pay those expenses out of pocket rather than pay for insurance. What I want as an American and a voter is the ability to continue to exercise that freedom in an environment that does not penalize me.
What I want is the money that I pay directly for healthcare to be exempted from taxation and for whatever insurance I do procure--catastrophic and special needs, as an example-- to be credited to me on my taxes. Frankly, if I wasn't paying taxes on the money I use to take care of myself, there would be no need for any other system.
Of course, my own example points out another problem: I've taken responsibility for my own healthcare. I don't expect anyone else to do it for me. Therein, I think, lies the true heart of the healthcare debate in the United States.
Dennis- the problem with your scenario is twofold:
If you do suffer catastrophic illness- you will declare bankruptcy and become a ward of the state with the government paying for your care, or hoping for handouts from hospitals.
Or, you have some genetic disorder that shows up later in life- and then no insurer will cover you either.
The other part is- it's cheaper to do preventative health care than reactionary health care. By the time you choose to pay to see the doctor, it may be more expensive to treat than if it had been caught earlier.
Health insurance isn't health care. Don't confuse the two.
David, that's just it, I do engage in preventative care for myself, and as soon as I can find a best fit high-deductible, catastrophic insurance plan that covers exactly the kind of emergencies you are talking about (yes, they do exist), then I will have coverage practically identical to any currently existing healthcare plan on the planet.
Secondly, since when did the government become responsible for telling me how to take care of myself?
Thirdly, your contention that someone will file for bankruptcy and become a ward of the state ignores how the current system actually works. Yes, some people do take that route, but some people also accept responsibility for their own problems and deal with them.
Finally, back to my original question: How can we expect a government that cannot run all sorts of other programs successfully to run our healthcare successfully? If all of these other countries' programs are so good, then why do so many of their citizens (the ones that can afford to because they pay half their income in taxes) come here for healthcare?
Again I point out: I take care of myself. I do not need the government to do it for me.
Dennis-
The system isn't working now.
The system may not work in the future.
However, I'd rather pay the docs than the bookies- as would you.
There has to be a better solution out there. We can't afford to keep the system we have.
And- sorry, you don't have a clue what happens with catastrophic illness. You will declare bankruptcy- you will have to change everything, even with great insurance, cancer or other types of diseases will cause huge financial burdens. Trust me- I know a few people who've been through it.
I may concede your point about catastrophic illness simply because I have not experienced it myself, although I have seen others go through similar experiences with varying results. I believe that I am capable of weathering even that kind of storm, but my reasons extend outside the scope of the present conversation.
I agree that something has to change from the system we have now.
I think where we disagree is how to make such a system work: you want the government to take over that responsibility while I want the government to enable me to take on that responsibility myself.
Post a Comment