The Baby-Formula Crime Ring (2018)(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
The Baby-Formula Crime Ring (2018)
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/05/02/magazine/money-issue-baby-formula-crime-ring.html
87 comments
That's terrifying! You would think such an issue would be worthy of a major investigation, what would happen if a baby lived on that powder for weeks?
Yeah, that's should be something along the lines of:
* Fraud: Selling a product not as advertised
* Tampering: Selling a product with the tamper seal broken
* Intent of causing bodily harm to newborns
Yeah that should give a nice little jail sentence lol. If this doesn't warrant an investigation then I don't know.
* Fraud: Selling a product not as advertised
* Tampering: Selling a product with the tamper seal broken
* Intent of causing bodily harm to newborns
Yeah that should give a nice little jail sentence lol. If this doesn't warrant an investigation then I don't know.
I mean, there has been investigations, many investigations, and they've found this sorta thing is Amazon's MO.
Example:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/08/report-finds-mor...
>Among the Journal's findings: 116 products falsely listed as FDA-approved, including toys, which the agency does not regulate; 80 listings for infant "sleeping wedges" the FDA says can cause suffocation and that Amazon had previously banned; 1,412 electronics listings falsely claiming to be UL-certified; 2,324 toys that failed to include federally mandated choking hazard warnings; and more.
>The WSJ commissioned tests of 10 specific children's products it bought on Amazon, many carrying the enigmatic "Amazon's Choice" badge. Of those, four failed tests based on federal safety standards, including one that contained excessively high levels of lead.
>A 23-year-old man in Missouri purchased a motorcycle helmet from Amazon that was at the time listed as certified as meeting US Department of Transportation safety standards. Later that year, however, he was killed in a crash while riding. A federal investigation later found that the helmet did not meet DOT standards and was recalled. The WSJ, however, found the product still for sale, with an active listing promising compliance, until the WSJ contacted Amazon to inquire about it.
>The WSJ's investigation found 157 products for sale that Amazon has already banned from sale on its site. The motorcycle helmet was one of more than 2,300 product listings altered or pulled after the WSJ drew them to Amazon's attention. Yet, within two weeks, the WSJ found that at least 130 of these problem items reappeared, "some sold by the same vendors previously identified by the Journal under different listings."
Example:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/08/report-finds-mor...
>Among the Journal's findings: 116 products falsely listed as FDA-approved, including toys, which the agency does not regulate; 80 listings for infant "sleeping wedges" the FDA says can cause suffocation and that Amazon had previously banned; 1,412 electronics listings falsely claiming to be UL-certified; 2,324 toys that failed to include federally mandated choking hazard warnings; and more.
>The WSJ commissioned tests of 10 specific children's products it bought on Amazon, many carrying the enigmatic "Amazon's Choice" badge. Of those, four failed tests based on federal safety standards, including one that contained excessively high levels of lead.
>A 23-year-old man in Missouri purchased a motorcycle helmet from Amazon that was at the time listed as certified as meeting US Department of Transportation safety standards. Later that year, however, he was killed in a crash while riding. A federal investigation later found that the helmet did not meet DOT standards and was recalled. The WSJ, however, found the product still for sale, with an active listing promising compliance, until the WSJ contacted Amazon to inquire about it.
>The WSJ's investigation found 157 products for sale that Amazon has already banned from sale on its site. The motorcycle helmet was one of more than 2,300 product listings altered or pulled after the WSJ drew them to Amazon's attention. Yet, within two weeks, the WSJ found that at least 130 of these problem items reappeared, "some sold by the same vendors previously identified by the Journal under different listings."
I guess Amazon wants to get every possible item into its marketplace so it can declare victory and corner the market. It's already a near monopolist so it can do this stuff. Terrifying what they'll do when they increase their market share further.
I guess you don't get Bezos rich by caring about customer well-being.
Sorry for the late reply, should have been more specific.
I mean a law enforcement investigation into tampered baby formula sales, targeting the actual sellers rather than only quantifying the problem.
I mean a law enforcement investigation into tampered baby formula sales, targeting the actual sellers rather than only quantifying the problem.
What was the replacement powder exactly do you know? Sounds like something you should have involved police in.
This also sometimes happens with returns at retail stores. I bought a $20 gallon of Acetone at Home Depot, took it home, and all it contained was water.
No the lesson is don’t order food products from Amazon! Order them from Target which has a far more controlled supply chain.
Unfortunately, Target has also introduced third party sellers on their website so it's no longer as easy to trust them as it once was.
Costco or the brand's website itself is my most trusted source for now.
Costco or the brand's website itself is my most trusted source for now.
My most trusted source is find the major players (make sure they are competing companies and not just brands of the same one), follow the "where to buy links", and find a small niche company that sells both brands. They tend to only sell one type of thing so they are experts and can give good reviews. They don't care which item I buy, just that I buy from them. They can thus tell me the real differences. I then buy from them as the prices are generally good and I get good service.
More generally don’t purchase anything that gets absorbed into your body from Amazon. That’s food, creams, gels, toothpaste...
What country are you in? Is that a serious criminal offense? Did law enforcement get involved?
Is there anywhere online with a large selection (electronics or food) that doesn't allow third party selling and actually sells legitimate product?
It's not the third party that makes it a problem. It's the comingling. So if you buy it from one company it could have actually came from another. So there is no way for the bad 3rd party to be held accountable. As far as I know Amazon is the only marketplace that does this.
I trust Target and Walmart over Amazon for anything food related.
My son had a bad reaction to regular formula, so we're stuck with using Enfamil Nutramigen. It's about $44 a can at Target or Walmart, and he goes through just over a can a week.
I've went on their website and mailed in the slip to get coupons, but they never send us any for this particular formula, just the other varieties. They are fairly valuable coupons, so we give them friends who can use them.
We are fortunate enough to be able to afford it, but it'd be nice to get a discount on what's basically $200/month.
One tip we've found is to ask the pediatrician's office for samples, they'll give us a couple small cans or bottles of ready-to-use formula when we ask.
I've went on their website and mailed in the slip to get coupons, but they never send us any for this particular formula, just the other varieties. They are fairly valuable coupons, so we give them friends who can use them.
We are fortunate enough to be able to afford it, but it'd be nice to get a discount on what's basically $200/month.
One tip we've found is to ask the pediatrician's office for samples, they'll give us a couple small cans or bottles of ready-to-use formula when we ask.
Same situation with my young one. Nutramigen worked great but caused runny poops. We went with HiPP HA Combiotik which really improved our baby's skin.
It's also a little cheaper than Nutramigen, especially if you buy in larger quantities (8-12 boxes at a time).
It's also a little cheaper than Nutramigen, especially if you buy in larger quantities (8-12 boxes at a time).
Sign up for Target Circle and use the Target card - 5% back by default and they OFTEN run a "buy two formula, get a $10 gift card" deals. Keep an eye for those.
So the government does its thing via WIC and distorts the market. The price goes up as the price-sensitive portion of the market disappears. Why wouldn't crime take advantage of this?
Alternative restated question: where are the competitors working to lower the price in a functioning economic dynamic? Enjoying the profits of a distorted market.
Alternative restated question: where are the competitors working to lower the price in a functioning economic dynamic? Enjoying the profits of a distorted market.
Another reason to breastfeed, if that's a viable option for the parents.
Some years ago, I noticed at my supermarket, that the baby formula was kept under lock and key, next to the cigarettes. I asked myself: "Now who's going to steal baby formula, when anybody who can't afford it is probably on assistance." Then I read this article.
Based on the date, it looks like I literally missed this article because I was standing in the aisle of a grocery store trying to decide which formula to buy for my three-day-old baby.
Lol. Based on date, we were pregnant and deciding which formula to use since we knew ahead breastfeeding was not an option for us. The funny part is we never used any of it because the little shit would only eat the pre-made liquid form and we only bought powder types. I still don't get why but the exact same product he loved came in a powder form and it was really incompatible for him. The joke was "he has expensive tastes"
Also, my advice to all new parents is don't stock up or plan too much on food related items/tools. Don't buy a dozen bottles until you know they like them. This applies into toddlerhood.
Also, my advice to all new parents is don't stock up or plan too much on food related items/tools. Don't buy a dozen bottles until you know they like them. This applies into toddlerhood.
That's great advice! We got a bunch of a couple kinds of bottles, there ended up being a few that he liked and the rest he just refused.
That’s exactly what happened to us. It’s happened with sippy cups too and strawed cups. To a lesser extent but if they don’t like the shape or handles or whatever it’s effectively useless. It's funny how opinionated kids can be at such a young age!
One of the bottle/alternative choices we tried was a slanted open-topped cup[1] designed for early open cup training. He actually drank milk out of it when he wouldn't take a bottle, and now drinks water out of it at meals, but if I don't help hold it he tips it back too far and gets a faceful. The hope is for him to learn right away to use a regular cup, and then only use a sippy cup when we need something he can't spill. Right now I'm just treating it as an early lesson in gravity and fluid dynamics.
[1] https://www.doidycups.com/
[1] https://www.doidycups.com/
Ha-- having been in that situation this past October, that simple description is incredibly evocative for me. Even in that dazed, sleepless state, though, I remember a sudden upwelling of intense sadness when I realized for the first time how expensive such a basic necessity was... and how they felt the need to keep it all locked up. Real moment of clarity about the state of this country (US).
[deleted]
Discussed at the time:
The baby formula crime ring - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17009675 - May 2018 (17 comments)
The baby formula crime ring - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17009675 - May 2018 (17 comments)
[deleted]
It is a bit disappointing, that in what we consider to be an advanced capitalist economy there are these pockets of exorbitantly high prices.
Genuine question: Is living in America as horrible as it sounds for the average, non-rich citizen?
Impression I get from the media:
Impression I get from the media:
* Education sets you in semi-if-not-permanent debt.
* Housing is impossibly expensive.
* Single hospital visit can be thousand of dollars.
* Critical medication is hundreds of dollars a month (or more).
* Unpaid, (effectively) mandatory overtime.
* Many people work several jobs (as adults).
* No paid vacation.
* No paid maternal leave.
* No paid paternal leave.
* Paternal leave is taboo/strange.
* Maternal leave is weeks/month or two.
Please don't take HN threads into nationalistic flamewar. We don't want that here. More generally, please don't take HN threads on generic ideological tangents. They lead to extremely repetitive discussion (the opposite of what we want on this site), and usually turn nasty if not outright hellish.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Forgive me, this was not my intent. Since the election campaign of your former president, the impression that has gotten broadcast outside of the US has looked bleak. In combination, I've read quite a few stories from HN with similar subjects as OP, so my question was one of curiosity, just very poorly phrased. I apologize.
It's unlikely you will get a representative set of answers form this site, which skews towards what you might call "upper-class" individuals.
That being said, if you're very, very poor it's not terrible to be a US citizen.
- Community college is free via a Pell grant.
- Housing is expensive, but you will qualify for Section 8 (welfare) and will eventually get housing for free.
- Hospital costs are irrelevant if you're very poor (5th percentile or so)
- Life-saving medicine is in the same boat. You would likely qualify for Medicaid if you're dirt poor
- You would likely work multiple jobs if you're dirt poor.
- You likely wouldn't have vacation if you're dirt poor.
- Same thing with maternal and paternal leave.
That being said your life in the USA depends very much on where you live. If you lived in Massachusetts, for example, you get maternal and paternal leave.
The real struggle in the USA is if you're between the 25th and 50th percentile. Where you're rich enough to not qualify for the things I mentioned above, but not so rich that you're on a more or less guaranteed path to financial independence.
That being said, if you're very, very poor it's not terrible to be a US citizen.
- Community college is free via a Pell grant.
- Housing is expensive, but you will qualify for Section 8 (welfare) and will eventually get housing for free.
- Hospital costs are irrelevant if you're very poor (5th percentile or so)
- Life-saving medicine is in the same boat. You would likely qualify for Medicaid if you're dirt poor
- You would likely work multiple jobs if you're dirt poor.
- You likely wouldn't have vacation if you're dirt poor.
- Same thing with maternal and paternal leave.
That being said your life in the USA depends very much on where you live. If you lived in Massachusetts, for example, you get maternal and paternal leave.
The real struggle in the USA is if you're between the 25th and 50th percentile. Where you're rich enough to not qualify for the things I mentioned above, but not so rich that you're on a more or less guaranteed path to financial independence.
That sounds more reasonable, thank you.
Your final point applies here too (Sweden), where you're in a position of maximal welfare, where taking a job would disqualify you. Most people end up taking the job to get out of the hellhole that is welfare, but you find the occasional individual that settles and feeds off of the system despite ability and opportunity to work.
Your final point applies here too (Sweden), where you're in a position of maximal welfare, where taking a job would disqualify you. Most people end up taking the job to get out of the hellhole that is welfare, but you find the occasional individual that settles and feeds off of the system despite ability and opportunity to work.
> That being said, if you're very, very poor it's not terrible to be a US citizen.
..then...
> You would likely work multiple jobs if you're dirt poor.
> You likely wouldn't have vacation if you're dirt poor.
I guess that's "not terrible" in your book, compared to starving in the streets?
> Community college is free via a Pell grant.
No it is not free. [1]
The maximum a pell grant can be is ~$5700. Community college costs are skyrocketing and Pell grants do not cover the entire cost.
> Housing is expensive, but you will qualify for Section 8 (welfare) and will eventually get housing for free
No it is not free. It is a fixed subsidy, not 100% costs. [2]
It is not required that landlords accept section 8 vouchers. [3] Many do not, hence homelessness ensues, but it is VERY helpful.
> It's unlikely you will get a representative set of answers form this site, which skews towards what you might call "upper-class" individuals.
Hello irony!
[1] https://www2.ed.gov/programs/fpg/index.html
[2] https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/what-cau...
[3] https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-section-8-landlords-2...
..then...
> You would likely work multiple jobs if you're dirt poor.
> You likely wouldn't have vacation if you're dirt poor.
I guess that's "not terrible" in your book, compared to starving in the streets?
> Community college is free via a Pell grant.
No it is not free. [1]
The maximum a pell grant can be is ~$5700. Community college costs are skyrocketing and Pell grants do not cover the entire cost.
> Housing is expensive, but you will qualify for Section 8 (welfare) and will eventually get housing for free
No it is not free. It is a fixed subsidy, not 100% costs. [2]
It is not required that landlords accept section 8 vouchers. [3] Many do not, hence homelessness ensues, but it is VERY helpful.
> It's unlikely you will get a representative set of answers form this site, which skews towards what you might call "upper-class" individuals.
Hello irony!
[1] https://www2.ed.gov/programs/fpg/index.html
[2] https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/what-cau...
[3] https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-section-8-landlords-2...
I’m not sure what you’re going on about:
1. The average community college can cost and usually does cost less than the full pell grant.
2. Discrimination against voucher recipients does exist, but the fact remains section 8 is generally enough to cover all of your housing in most places in the USA.
I believe it is better to be in the 5th percentile in the USA than most places. Feel free to show a counter example if you want.
1. The average community college can cost and usually does cost less than the full pell grant.
2. Discrimination against voucher recipients does exist, but the fact remains section 8 is generally enough to cover all of your housing in most places in the USA.
I believe it is better to be in the 5th percentile in the USA than most places. Feel free to show a counter example if you want.
The pell grant will more than cover many community college options. There are usually also state programs to help pay for state and community colleges. This does not reduce what you can get from the pell grant.
Housing is very affordable in most of the US. Just not in major cities. In my smallish college town, 100k population, you can get a 3 bed 2 bath, 1200 sqft home for around $120k.
Housing is very affordable in most of the US. Just not in major cities. In my smallish college town, 100k population, you can get a 3 bed 2 bath, 1200 sqft home for around $120k.
> The pell grant will more than cover many community college options.
Where "many" is about 10% based on this link. [1]
Four states have an average cost under the maximum pell grant. Most states have fewer than 5 colleges that meet that requirement.
So tack on moving expenses and housing to tuition to go find an affordable community college. I'm sure paying rent is cheap in those towns, and would be covered by the Pell grant, assuming you qualified for the full $5750.
> Housing is very affordable in most of the US. Just not in major cities. In my smallish college town, 100k population, you can get a 3 bed 2 bath, 1200 sqft home for around $120k.
Sure, if you don't mind working at a gas station or supermarket with your fancy new college degree. But there are "many" dying rural towns that will pay you to move there, so there's that. [2]
Bottom line: no one in their right mind can argue that being poor isn't really that terrible as OP did. The fact that you're trying to, is gross.
[1] https://www.communitycollegereview.com/avg-tuition-stats/nat...
[2] https://www.thepennyhoarder.com/make-money/places-that-will-...
Where "many" is about 10% based on this link. [1]
Four states have an average cost under the maximum pell grant. Most states have fewer than 5 colleges that meet that requirement.
So tack on moving expenses and housing to tuition to go find an affordable community college. I'm sure paying rent is cheap in those towns, and would be covered by the Pell grant, assuming you qualified for the full $5750.
> Housing is very affordable in most of the US. Just not in major cities. In my smallish college town, 100k population, you can get a 3 bed 2 bath, 1200 sqft home for around $120k.
Sure, if you don't mind working at a gas station or supermarket with your fancy new college degree. But there are "many" dying rural towns that will pay you to move there, so there's that. [2]
Bottom line: no one in their right mind can argue that being poor isn't really that terrible as OP did. The fact that you're trying to, is gross.
[1] https://www.communitycollegereview.com/avg-tuition-stats/nat...
[2] https://www.thepennyhoarder.com/make-money/places-that-will-...
I didn't say being poor isn't that terrible. I'merely pointing out the fact, that you verified, that there are hundreds of colleges in america that you can attend with a pell grant only.
Of course, there are also other non-loan options for financial aid at many universities.
And no, everyone there doesn't work at gas stations or supermarkets.
Of course, there are also other non-loan options for financial aid at many universities.
And no, everyone there doesn't work at gas stations or supermarkets.
>The real struggle in the USA is if you're between the 25th and 50th percentile.
I would say 20th to 80th percentile. You're phased out of benefits, but you're not earning enough to build wealth, especially in higher cost of living areas where the 60th+ percentile earnings are.
I would say 20th to 80th percentile. You're phased out of benefits, but you're not earning enough to build wealth, especially in higher cost of living areas where the 60th+ percentile earnings are.
Don't know why you're being downvoted, 80th percentile is ~$86k single-earner. As an example, the write-off for student loan interest is completely phased out at $85k.
Education can be really expensive. However, there are many great state schools, and there is also a lot of financial aid. Many people get a great education and are not saddled with debt.
Housing is impossibly expensive in metro areas where people make a lot of money. The US is a large country and there is a lot of variability to housing costs throughout the US.
A single hospital bill could be thousands of dollars or 0 if it's covered by your insurance. If you are really poor then you get insurance from the State. If you have a good job, then you get insurance through your work.
It could be or it could be not very much depending on the factors described regarding hospital visits.
Unpaid, effectively mandatory overtime applies to salaried people with well paying jobs. It's a bad situation, but if this applies to you, then the other issues aren't as bad.
Many poor people work more than one job. Working class people need to get paid more. Maybe the minimum wage will be raised at the Federal level, but probably not. Minimum wage is also location dependent, so it's already higher than $15 in some locales.
People with good jobs get PTO. Working class people in bad jobs do not get paid vacation.
States provide some benefit for maternal and paternal leave. It's not 100% of your wages though.
I don't think Paternal leave is taboo or strange. I don't think that's part of the culture.
Maternal leave depends on the State and the company that they work for. If you have a good job, then you will get more Maternal leave.
I'm sure there were a lot of rugged individuals in 1930s Poland.
Housing is impossibly expensive in metro areas where people make a lot of money. The US is a large country and there is a lot of variability to housing costs throughout the US.
A single hospital bill could be thousands of dollars or 0 if it's covered by your insurance. If you are really poor then you get insurance from the State. If you have a good job, then you get insurance through your work.
It could be or it could be not very much depending on the factors described regarding hospital visits.
Unpaid, effectively mandatory overtime applies to salaried people with well paying jobs. It's a bad situation, but if this applies to you, then the other issues aren't as bad.
Many poor people work more than one job. Working class people need to get paid more. Maybe the minimum wage will be raised at the Federal level, but probably not. Minimum wage is also location dependent, so it's already higher than $15 in some locales.
People with good jobs get PTO. Working class people in bad jobs do not get paid vacation.
States provide some benefit for maternal and paternal leave. It's not 100% of your wages though.
I don't think Paternal leave is taboo or strange. I don't think that's part of the culture.
Maternal leave depends on the State and the company that they work for. If you have a good job, then you will get more Maternal leave.
I'm sure there were a lot of rugged individuals in 1930s Poland.
America has a high ceiling and a low floor for quality of living.
For above average, America is arguably better (with some caveats). For the average person, its better than Europe (in that you can afford more since you are paid more and taxed less, but Europe definitely gets more paid time off / leave). If you are poor enough to qualify for government assistance its roughly on par with Europe--though maybe a bit worse.
But there is a bottom 10-25% (where the line is, I'm not sure) that would be a lot better off in Europe.
The average college debt (~30k) is about the same as a single year's difference income between high school and college graduates (~30k). They are paying for a personal investment.
Housing (not in California, NYC, or DC) is cheaper in the USA than other rich countries).
90%+ have health insurance that covers hospital visits
A high percentage will have medicine covered by their insurance
Less than 6% of people have multiple jobs.
No mandatory paid vacation (but any halfway decent job will get you 2-3 weeks). Europe gets more, but we get paid more. I'd probably rather have the time off, but some people would rather have the money.
For above average, America is arguably better (with some caveats). For the average person, its better than Europe (in that you can afford more since you are paid more and taxed less, but Europe definitely gets more paid time off / leave). If you are poor enough to qualify for government assistance its roughly on par with Europe--though maybe a bit worse.
But there is a bottom 10-25% (where the line is, I'm not sure) that would be a lot better off in Europe.
The average college debt (~30k) is about the same as a single year's difference income between high school and college graduates (~30k). They are paying for a personal investment.
Housing (not in California, NYC, or DC) is cheaper in the USA than other rich countries).
90%+ have health insurance that covers hospital visits
A high percentage will have medicine covered by their insurance
Less than 6% of people have multiple jobs.
No mandatory paid vacation (but any halfway decent job will get you 2-3 weeks). Europe gets more, but we get paid more. I'd probably rather have the time off, but some people would rather have the money.
Well you definitely have the wrong idea. About 20% of Americans do live in extreme economic precarity. But things are not out of a horror movie. That’s in fact why there hasn’t been a violent revolution, things aren’t bad enough here (yet?).
fredrikholm(5)
> Well you definitely have the wrong idea. About 20% of Americans do live in extreme economic precarity.
I think they do have the right idea. Many of their points stands for even the bottom 80%. We've simply grown to accept that "this just is the way things are".
22% of the population between 18-65 owe student loans, which might not sound like much until you realize that only 40% of the population has a college degree. So over 50% of college-educated adults still have student loan debt. That number is also heavily weighted towards those 40 and younger due to rapidly ballooning costs, and will likely increase to 75%+ of college-educated adults within the next twenty years.
0.35% of adults file for medical bankruptcy alone every year. I couldn't find direct statistics on the total number of bankruptcies, but naïvely this implies that somewhere around 5–10% of the adult population will file for medical bankruptcy at some point in their lifetime. The majority of these bankruptcies were for people with health insurance.
Maternal leave is by law unpaid, and few companies offer paid leave and paternal leave is virtually unheard of outside of extremely progressive companies.
59% of the workforce is hourly and thus generally does not get paid leave of any kind.
I think they do have the right idea. Many of their points stands for even the bottom 80%. We've simply grown to accept that "this just is the way things are".
22% of the population between 18-65 owe student loans, which might not sound like much until you realize that only 40% of the population has a college degree. So over 50% of college-educated adults still have student loan debt. That number is also heavily weighted towards those 40 and younger due to rapidly ballooning costs, and will likely increase to 75%+ of college-educated adults within the next twenty years.
0.35% of adults file for medical bankruptcy alone every year. I couldn't find direct statistics on the total number of bankruptcies, but naïvely this implies that somewhere around 5–10% of the adult population will file for medical bankruptcy at some point in their lifetime. The majority of these bankruptcies were for people with health insurance.
Maternal leave is by law unpaid, and few companies offer paid leave and paternal leave is virtually unheard of outside of extremely progressive companies.
59% of the workforce is hourly and thus generally does not get paid leave of any kind.
> So over 50% of college-educated adults still have student loan debt.
So long as the interest rates on student loans is lower than the expected % return from an index fund, smart money is on not paying off those loans.
I have friends who could pay off their entire student loans amount, but why would they?
Same logic applies to why I took out a 3 year loan at 2% for my last new car.
High interest debt? Get that paid off ASAP. But I'd want to see a breakdown of interest rates of student loan debt before I start seeing gloom and doom!
> Maternal leave is by law unpaid, and few companies offer paid leave and paternal leave is virtually unheard of outside of extremely progressive companies.
This needs to change, and it is on a state by state basis. We are up to 10 states that have mandatory paid maternity leave! Still not nearly long enough in many cases, but progress is being made.
So long as the interest rates on student loans is lower than the expected % return from an index fund, smart money is on not paying off those loans.
I have friends who could pay off their entire student loans amount, but why would they?
Same logic applies to why I took out a 3 year loan at 2% for my last new car.
High interest debt? Get that paid off ASAP. But I'd want to see a breakdown of interest rates of student loan debt before I start seeing gloom and doom!
> Maternal leave is by law unpaid, and few companies offer paid leave and paternal leave is virtually unheard of outside of extremely progressive companies.
This needs to change, and it is on a state by state basis. We are up to 10 states that have mandatory paid maternity leave! Still not nearly long enough in many cases, but progress is being made.
> So over 50% of college-educated adults still have student loan debt.
How much? What's the percentile breakdown? How does it impact their monthly income? What's their economic potential without the degree? Are you suggesting it's higher if most just hadn't gotten a degree? How many choose economically unviable degrees? Who made them do that?
You're simplifying a complex issue—and inferring a problem—without demonstrating the problem. The fact that 50% of college educated adults have student loan debt tells me absolutely nothing of substance.
I don't understand how you can make a judgement in any regard without that information.
> 0.35% of adults file for medical bankruptcy alone every year.
There's no such thing as "medical bankruptcy", so I assume you mean "bankruptcy caused by medical bills". For how many of these people is the medical bill the sole cause? A major cause? One of many causes?
Again, without identifying this in a more granular way, you're asserting some undefined "problem" which means there's no equitable mechanism to rectify that problem.
> Maternal leave is by law unpaid, and few companies offer paid leave and paternal leave is virtually unheard of outside of extremely progressive companies.
Here again stating a condition, but not identifying the problem. To what end? What's the cost to the family? To the mother? To the child? The social cost?
I can't help but feel you're just regurgitating political talking points which, frankly, aren't designed to solve problems. They're designed to emotionally hook with a voter base and ultimately get the person elected, or the newspaper sold, or whatever self-serving reason someone in power would actively choose to be so vague as to not even concretely identify a problem. It's just the notion of a problem.
I'm not saying there's no problems. I'm just saying you spent a lot of words trying to counter the parent post, but didn't say much at all. I'd like to learn more about this, but I can't find much online, and unfortunately your post wasn't very helpful.
Do you know more than you said and you're just holding it close to your chest for the sake of brevity?
How much? What's the percentile breakdown? How does it impact their monthly income? What's their economic potential without the degree? Are you suggesting it's higher if most just hadn't gotten a degree? How many choose economically unviable degrees? Who made them do that?
You're simplifying a complex issue—and inferring a problem—without demonstrating the problem. The fact that 50% of college educated adults have student loan debt tells me absolutely nothing of substance.
I don't understand how you can make a judgement in any regard without that information.
> 0.35% of adults file for medical bankruptcy alone every year.
There's no such thing as "medical bankruptcy", so I assume you mean "bankruptcy caused by medical bills". For how many of these people is the medical bill the sole cause? A major cause? One of many causes?
Again, without identifying this in a more granular way, you're asserting some undefined "problem" which means there's no equitable mechanism to rectify that problem.
> Maternal leave is by law unpaid, and few companies offer paid leave and paternal leave is virtually unheard of outside of extremely progressive companies.
Here again stating a condition, but not identifying the problem. To what end? What's the cost to the family? To the mother? To the child? The social cost?
I can't help but feel you're just regurgitating political talking points which, frankly, aren't designed to solve problems. They're designed to emotionally hook with a voter base and ultimately get the person elected, or the newspaper sold, or whatever self-serving reason someone in power would actively choose to be so vague as to not even concretely identify a problem. It's just the notion of a problem.
I'm not saying there's no problems. I'm just saying you spent a lot of words trying to counter the parent post, but didn't say much at all. I'd like to learn more about this, but I can't find much online, and unfortunately your post wasn't very helpful.
Do you know more than you said and you're just holding it close to your chest for the sake of brevity?
> How much? What's the percentile breakdown? How does it impact their monthly income? What's their economic potential without the degree? Are you suggesting it's higher if most just hadn't gotten a degree? How many choose economically unviable degrees? Who made them do that?
With all due respect, this all falls under rationalization of "well this is just the way things are".
Literally 100% of your statement would apply if were in an alternate reality where children took out student loans for children in K-12. "How does it impact their monthly income? What's their economic potential without kindergarten?"
It's garbage, and much of the rest of the developed world has figured out how to provide higher education to their population for a fraction of the cost that we do—or even free—in the same way we figured out how to provide K-12 to every child without inflicting thirty years of debt on them.
> There's no such thing as "medical bankruptcy", so I assume you mean "bankruptcy caused by medical bills". For how many of these people is the medical bill the sole cause? A major cause? One of many causes?
I assume you're picking nits over semantics because there's no disagreeing with the fact that over one million Americans file for bankruptcy due to unpaid medical bills every year.
You know well the argument that was being made, but you decided to ignore the wider point to quibble pointlessly over semantics. Why?
With all due respect, this all falls under rationalization of "well this is just the way things are".
Literally 100% of your statement would apply if were in an alternate reality where children took out student loans for children in K-12. "How does it impact their monthly income? What's their economic potential without kindergarten?"
It's garbage, and much of the rest of the developed world has figured out how to provide higher education to their population for a fraction of the cost that we do—or even free—in the same way we figured out how to provide K-12 to every child without inflicting thirty years of debt on them.
> There's no such thing as "medical bankruptcy", so I assume you mean "bankruptcy caused by medical bills". For how many of these people is the medical bill the sole cause? A major cause? One of many causes?
I assume you're picking nits over semantics because there's no disagreeing with the fact that over one million Americans file for bankruptcy due to unpaid medical bills every year.
You know well the argument that was being made, but you decided to ignore the wider point to quibble pointlessly over semantics. Why?
> With all due respect, this all falls under rationalization of "well this is just the way things are".
I'm not suggesting "this is just the way things are." I'm saying that you haven't even identified "the way things are", and yet you're using vague insinuations to demonstrate judgement.
I do not suggest that one must be 100% precise or granular to do so. That would be a rationalization for "this is just the way things are". I do, however, suggest a more nuanced expression before labeling something as "good" or "bad".
> I assume you're picking nits over semantics because there's no disagreeing with the fact that over one million Americans file for bankruptcy due to unpaid medical bills every year.
> You know well the argument that was being made, but you decided to ignore the wider point to quibble pointlessly over semantics. Why?
I'm picking nits because the absence of precision leads to incorrect assessment and incorrect solution.
No, I do not dispute that there are one million bankruptcies filed in a year. I don't know how precise it is or how many are influenced by medical expenses, but I'm taking you at your word that you're making a truthful statement.
But I do assert that "one million bankruptcies" is an effectively meaningless statement without knowing more. For example, let's say you have no previous knowledge of the following:
"90% of residents in Oak Parks Village die within the first 5 years of their residency."
Assuming zero further knowledge, one could infer many things:
- Oak Parks Village is dangerous
- residents are unhealthy
- Oak Parks Village makes its residents unhealthy
- residents have a death wish
If we're stuck with no granularity, one could imagine that it's "a hell hole" or "a sanctuary" or any number of things. Solutions could be to eliminate Oak Parks Village, deter people from residing there, and so on.
To act or judge based on these assumptions is wrong. Why? Because Oak Parks Village is a nursing home that admits elderly patients, 80% of whom have terminal pre-existing conditions.
One doesn't necessarily need the granularity of the exact demographic of the facility, or where exactly it's located, or a whole bunch of other things in order to make a judgement. But some features of it are crucial to understand before one can understand Oak Parks Village or what, if anything, should be done about it.
If one, knowing this information, would like to extend lives, one could try to understand the medical conditions that lead to the greatest number of deaths and possibly address it. But without identifying relevant features—even if with broad strokes—any assessment or action would be irresponsible.
The statement "one million bankruptcies are filed due to unpaid medical bills every year" is almost as meaningless as just knowing that Oak Parks Village exists. Is the problem lack of insurance? Is it low wages? Price gouging? Lack of choice? What is the outcome for these people? What other factors contribute?
I'm not being pedantic. You're being general. Way too general to make an assessment or imply its contribution to the question seeking relevance to a problem.
One doesn't have to be without action in the absence of perfect information. But it is hugely irresponsible to communicate a problem when one cannot even identify the problem, just a symptom of something.
So no, I didn't ignore the wider point. I challenge that your wider point doesn't address the question of the parent comment because you're using side effects to insinuate a problem that you don't identify but presume to be understood.
I'm not sure if you're familiar with programming, but if you are, and someone files a bug "one million people file bankruptcy for medical expenses", would you be able to address it with no further information? What would be the changes to the "code" that you make? If you can't identify concrete changes, then you haven't identified the problem.
I'm not suggesting "this is just the way things are." I'm saying that you haven't even identified "the way things are", and yet you're using vague insinuations to demonstrate judgement.
I do not suggest that one must be 100% precise or granular to do so. That would be a rationalization for "this is just the way things are". I do, however, suggest a more nuanced expression before labeling something as "good" or "bad".
> I assume you're picking nits over semantics because there's no disagreeing with the fact that over one million Americans file for bankruptcy due to unpaid medical bills every year.
> You know well the argument that was being made, but you decided to ignore the wider point to quibble pointlessly over semantics. Why?
I'm picking nits because the absence of precision leads to incorrect assessment and incorrect solution.
No, I do not dispute that there are one million bankruptcies filed in a year. I don't know how precise it is or how many are influenced by medical expenses, but I'm taking you at your word that you're making a truthful statement.
But I do assert that "one million bankruptcies" is an effectively meaningless statement without knowing more. For example, let's say you have no previous knowledge of the following:
"90% of residents in Oak Parks Village die within the first 5 years of their residency."
Assuming zero further knowledge, one could infer many things:
- Oak Parks Village is dangerous
- residents are unhealthy
- Oak Parks Village makes its residents unhealthy
- residents have a death wish
If we're stuck with no granularity, one could imagine that it's "a hell hole" or "a sanctuary" or any number of things. Solutions could be to eliminate Oak Parks Village, deter people from residing there, and so on.
To act or judge based on these assumptions is wrong. Why? Because Oak Parks Village is a nursing home that admits elderly patients, 80% of whom have terminal pre-existing conditions.
One doesn't necessarily need the granularity of the exact demographic of the facility, or where exactly it's located, or a whole bunch of other things in order to make a judgement. But some features of it are crucial to understand before one can understand Oak Parks Village or what, if anything, should be done about it.
If one, knowing this information, would like to extend lives, one could try to understand the medical conditions that lead to the greatest number of deaths and possibly address it. But without identifying relevant features—even if with broad strokes—any assessment or action would be irresponsible.
The statement "one million bankruptcies are filed due to unpaid medical bills every year" is almost as meaningless as just knowing that Oak Parks Village exists. Is the problem lack of insurance? Is it low wages? Price gouging? Lack of choice? What is the outcome for these people? What other factors contribute?
I'm not being pedantic. You're being general. Way too general to make an assessment or imply its contribution to the question seeking relevance to a problem.
One doesn't have to be without action in the absence of perfect information. But it is hugely irresponsible to communicate a problem when one cannot even identify the problem, just a symptom of something.
So no, I didn't ignore the wider point. I challenge that your wider point doesn't address the question of the parent comment because you're using side effects to insinuate a problem that you don't identify but presume to be understood.
I'm not sure if you're familiar with programming, but if you are, and someone files a bug "one million people file bankruptcy for medical expenses", would you be able to address it with no further information? What would be the changes to the "code" that you make? If you can't identify concrete changes, then you haven't identified the problem.
A lot of these generalizations comes from headlines and they often don't hold true (or there's more to the story but it's not clickbaity enough). Some of it is flat out misinformation.
A good example is education. Community Colleges are, mostly, free. State schools are incredibly affordable and private non-profits (think MIT) often have need blind admission where they will make sure anyone that is admitted can attend. But there are for-profit schools that will try and charge the maximum they can and it's those you hear about in the news.
A good example is education. Community Colleges are, mostly, free. State schools are incredibly affordable and private non-profits (think MIT) often have need blind admission where they will make sure anyone that is admitted can attend. But there are for-profit schools that will try and charge the maximum they can and it's those you hear about in the news.
There is definitely a "sweet spot" where things could be very uncomfortable for you, if you're doing well enough to not qualify for government assistance but poorly enough to need some kind of help. In general I think a lot of stories are somewhat sensationalized and that our culture is more enthusiastically self-critical than Sweden's.
Schools are an example, how you always hear about the ruinous costs of expensive schools, but it forgets all manner of grants, academic assistance, and the existence of much cheaper schools (everything from in-state to community colleges). A greater portion of American citizens have tertiary education compared to Sweden[1], so it would be weird if education were effectively/relatively more expensive here.
Healthcare is similar. It's provided free to people who can't afford it and people with good jobs will get health insurance from their jobs. There is a window, the sweet spot I referred to, where people can "technically" afford healthcare so it isn't given free by the government, but affording it is a genuine hardship for them or an unexpected illness crushes them financially. You can also shrug off lots of medical debt by declaring bankruptcy or telling the hospital you will declare bankruptcy unless they negotiate better terms for you to pay - and hospitals can't turn you away in an emergency.
Housing is impossibly expensive only in some areas and incredibly cheap in others. Go on Zillow and look at houses in Houston, for example. I expect you'll see large and luxurious houses for relatively good prices. Houses in some cities (Seattle, New York, SF) are expensive but not in all/most.
Regarding overtime it depends how you get paid. If you're paid by the hour then unpaid overtime would be illegal. If you're paid salary then the expectation is that you do your job if it takes 8 hours a day or if it takes 12 (or if it takes 4). Some jobs exploit this but again, it's right in the sweet spot. High end jobs either compensate you enough so it's worth it (think: your high priced business lawyer will answer your 2 am phone call, but you pay him millions) and other jobs won't exploit you too much because you'll leave if they try it (work life balance isn't good).
I have less knowledge around maternity leave and paid vacation. I've only seen that stuff from my perspective and I've been lucky enough to work at places where both have been generous.
1 - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tertiar...
Schools are an example, how you always hear about the ruinous costs of expensive schools, but it forgets all manner of grants, academic assistance, and the existence of much cheaper schools (everything from in-state to community colleges). A greater portion of American citizens have tertiary education compared to Sweden[1], so it would be weird if education were effectively/relatively more expensive here.
Healthcare is similar. It's provided free to people who can't afford it and people with good jobs will get health insurance from their jobs. There is a window, the sweet spot I referred to, where people can "technically" afford healthcare so it isn't given free by the government, but affording it is a genuine hardship for them or an unexpected illness crushes them financially. You can also shrug off lots of medical debt by declaring bankruptcy or telling the hospital you will declare bankruptcy unless they negotiate better terms for you to pay - and hospitals can't turn you away in an emergency.
Housing is impossibly expensive only in some areas and incredibly cheap in others. Go on Zillow and look at houses in Houston, for example. I expect you'll see large and luxurious houses for relatively good prices. Houses in some cities (Seattle, New York, SF) are expensive but not in all/most.
Regarding overtime it depends how you get paid. If you're paid by the hour then unpaid overtime would be illegal. If you're paid salary then the expectation is that you do your job if it takes 8 hours a day or if it takes 12 (or if it takes 4). Some jobs exploit this but again, it's right in the sweet spot. High end jobs either compensate you enough so it's worth it (think: your high priced business lawyer will answer your 2 am phone call, but you pay him millions) and other jobs won't exploit you too much because you'll leave if they try it (work life balance isn't good).
I have less knowledge around maternity leave and paid vacation. I've only seen that stuff from my perspective and I've been lucky enough to work at places where both have been generous.
1 - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tertiar...
* My education left me with 12k USD of debt, but provided significant earning opportunities. For me, it was worthwhile. I did elect to forgo a graduate degree, despite my above-average grades and desire to obtain one, because it would have incurred upwards of 50k USD of additional debt. One of my friends graduated with nearly 80k USD of debt to obtain a masters degree of engineering, and has not paid it back fully after ten years. Another person I knew graduated with a bachelors of fine arts from the most expensive institution in my state, with nearly 200k USD worth of debt. It has ruined her financial life forever. So, there are many possible outcomes. Meanwhile, my mother worked part-time during the summer holiday and was able to use those wages to fully pay for her own tuition and board at an excellent state school. In general, I believe the extension of easy credit, un-dischargeable in bankruptcy, has encouraged schools to raise prices without limit.
* Housing is highly location dependent. Many communities have been utterly deprived of income-producing work, and housing there can be had for a pittance. Places with opportunity to work are flooded by those seeking out the few remaining opportunities. In the past, companies and individuals would go to less-populated areas to establish manufacturing or farming ventures, making profitable use of the cheap land. with those sorts of industries leaving the country or being consolidate by conglomerates, the few remaining opportunities to earn income are consolidated into a minority of cities. Cheap credit here, too, has allowed the desirable land in these areas to be consolidated into a few financial-real-estate instruments. In other words, there is historically extraordinary demand for a commodity which is practically monopolized.
* Single hospital visits are always thousands of dollars. In the past, the American Medical Association lobbied congress to increase the cost of medical care, because they were embarrassed that the poor were able to afford the services of physicians. See the history of "friendly societies" in the US for details. Then, also, medical insurance began to be offered by companies to their employees as a way to increase tax-free wages. When this practice became common, some politicians viewed it as politically convenient to force these insurance companies to cover non-emergency procedures and doctors visits as well. This is an economic problem called "third party payer" which always results in rising prices. Medical practitioners cannot legally have two pricing tiers for the insured and the uninsured, so the high prices are what sticks.
* As for medications, take note that the previous president edicted that the prices of certain medications be lowered. The current, mainstream, president rescinded those edictions in less than one month. It is in the interest of the powerful and wealthy in this country that these prices remain high.
* The way employees may be treated depends on their classification. Hourly wage employees are legally required to be paid a premium for overtime work. Salaried employees are considered exempt from such requirements. This creates an incentive to classify employees such that they are exempted from the overtime protections. See also the practice of classifying employees as contractors to exempt them from legal protections, or preventing hourly employees from working enough hours to qualify for certain legal protections.
* The previously mentioned employee classification system is the direct cause of many people having to work multiple jobs. The people I know that had to behave this way would have preferred to work longer hours at a single employer but that would have caused their employer to provide them with the legal obligations for a full-time employee.
* Paid time off for any reason is a feature of many positions but not all of them. In practice, employers would just work to re-classify employees such that their overhead per employee was at a level they considered acceptable, regardless of legal obligations, as stated previously.
Life in the US is largely controlled by the very wealthy (oligarchs) rather than by democratic processes. This has been the mainstream political order in this country since at least the 1970s, but has been present to a smaller degree for some time before that. I will further note that there are exceptionally vast cultural, moral, practical, and ideological differences between different parts of the country, and your individual experience depends heavily on that fact.
* Housing is highly location dependent. Many communities have been utterly deprived of income-producing work, and housing there can be had for a pittance. Places with opportunity to work are flooded by those seeking out the few remaining opportunities. In the past, companies and individuals would go to less-populated areas to establish manufacturing or farming ventures, making profitable use of the cheap land. with those sorts of industries leaving the country or being consolidate by conglomerates, the few remaining opportunities to earn income are consolidated into a minority of cities. Cheap credit here, too, has allowed the desirable land in these areas to be consolidated into a few financial-real-estate instruments. In other words, there is historically extraordinary demand for a commodity which is practically monopolized.
* Single hospital visits are always thousands of dollars. In the past, the American Medical Association lobbied congress to increase the cost of medical care, because they were embarrassed that the poor were able to afford the services of physicians. See the history of "friendly societies" in the US for details. Then, also, medical insurance began to be offered by companies to their employees as a way to increase tax-free wages. When this practice became common, some politicians viewed it as politically convenient to force these insurance companies to cover non-emergency procedures and doctors visits as well. This is an economic problem called "third party payer" which always results in rising prices. Medical practitioners cannot legally have two pricing tiers for the insured and the uninsured, so the high prices are what sticks.
* As for medications, take note that the previous president edicted that the prices of certain medications be lowered. The current, mainstream, president rescinded those edictions in less than one month. It is in the interest of the powerful and wealthy in this country that these prices remain high.
* The way employees may be treated depends on their classification. Hourly wage employees are legally required to be paid a premium for overtime work. Salaried employees are considered exempt from such requirements. This creates an incentive to classify employees such that they are exempted from the overtime protections. See also the practice of classifying employees as contractors to exempt them from legal protections, or preventing hourly employees from working enough hours to qualify for certain legal protections.
* The previously mentioned employee classification system is the direct cause of many people having to work multiple jobs. The people I know that had to behave this way would have preferred to work longer hours at a single employer but that would have caused their employer to provide them with the legal obligations for a full-time employee.
* Paid time off for any reason is a feature of many positions but not all of them. In practice, employers would just work to re-classify employees such that their overhead per employee was at a level they considered acceptable, regardless of legal obligations, as stated previously.
Life in the US is largely controlled by the very wealthy (oligarchs) rather than by democratic processes. This has been the mainstream political order in this country since at least the 1970s, but has been present to a smaller degree for some time before that. I will further note that there are exceptionally vast cultural, moral, practical, and ideological differences between different parts of the country, and your individual experience depends heavily on that fact.
Very interesting read. Thank you.
> As for medications, take note that the previous president edicted that the prices of certain medications be lowered. The current, mainstream, president rescinded those edictions in less than one month. It is in the interest of the powerful and wealthy in this country that these prices remain high.
That’s not exactly what happened.
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/07/trumps-executive-orders-on...
That’s not exactly what happened.
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/07/trumps-executive-orders-on...
While that's all true, in the literal sense that those protections/benefits aren't legislated in the US, a significant number (maybe a majority, don't know for sure) of workers do get these things from their employer.
Education - yeah, this one is a problem. College costs too much. State schools in my area are $18k/year for in-state students and $51k/year for out-of-state/international students. That doesn't include room, board, book/supplies.
Housing - highly dependent on region. NYC, SF, LA are very expensive, but so are London and Tokyo. DC, Boston, Chicago are expensive, but "affordable" in the sense that most people with solid employment can purchase a home (anecdote - 2 friends of mine are UPS delivery drivers and both owned homes in their late-20s).
Health care - most workers have insurance through their employer. There are often large co-pays and deductibles. And the US as a unit overspends massively on health-care compared to Europe, Japan, and others.
Mandatory OT - highly dependent on job. Hourly workers get OT pay. Salaried workers (exempt) do not. IMO, a lot of salaried workers are misclassified as exempt when they should be hourly wage earners, but that cow left the barn a long time ago.
Vacation/PTO/holidays - highly dependent on job. Most salaried workers receive 3+ weeks/year of PTO. Hourly workers is hit or miss. FWIW, I have 5 weeks vacation, 2 weeks sick leave, and 10 holidays. This is about as good as it gets in the US and I've been at my employer 18 years (stared with 3 weeks leave, 2 sick, 10 holidays).
Parental leave - yeah, we lag WAY behind here. It's terrible.
1930s Poland we are not. But, there's LOTS of room for improvement.
[insert political rant about people voting against their own interests]
“John Steinbeck once said that socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” -― Ronald Wright
Education - yeah, this one is a problem. College costs too much. State schools in my area are $18k/year for in-state students and $51k/year for out-of-state/international students. That doesn't include room, board, book/supplies.
Housing - highly dependent on region. NYC, SF, LA are very expensive, but so are London and Tokyo. DC, Boston, Chicago are expensive, but "affordable" in the sense that most people with solid employment can purchase a home (anecdote - 2 friends of mine are UPS delivery drivers and both owned homes in their late-20s).
Health care - most workers have insurance through their employer. There are often large co-pays and deductibles. And the US as a unit overspends massively on health-care compared to Europe, Japan, and others.
Mandatory OT - highly dependent on job. Hourly workers get OT pay. Salaried workers (exempt) do not. IMO, a lot of salaried workers are misclassified as exempt when they should be hourly wage earners, but that cow left the barn a long time ago.
Vacation/PTO/holidays - highly dependent on job. Most salaried workers receive 3+ weeks/year of PTO. Hourly workers is hit or miss. FWIW, I have 5 weeks vacation, 2 weeks sick leave, and 10 holidays. This is about as good as it gets in the US and I've been at my employer 18 years (stared with 3 weeks leave, 2 sick, 10 holidays).
Parental leave - yeah, we lag WAY behind here. It's terrible.
1930s Poland we are not. But, there's LOTS of room for improvement.
[insert political rant about people voting against their own interests]
“John Steinbeck once said that socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” -― Ronald Wright
40% of us have iPhones, it can't be that bad.
Financially, it sounds pretty bad and unstable:
> more than a third of Americans said they could not cover an unexpected $400 home repair or hospital bill without going into debt
> a third of U.S. adults say they are having difficulty covering everyday costs such as food, rent or car payments
> survey after survey for years has found that most people in the U.S. live paycheck to paycheck.
https://www.npr.org/2020/12/16/941292021/paycheck-to-paychec...
> more than a third of Americans said they could not cover an unexpected $400 home repair or hospital bill without going into debt
> a third of U.S. adults say they are having difficulty covering everyday costs such as food, rent or car payments
> survey after survey for years has found that most people in the U.S. live paycheck to paycheck.
https://www.npr.org/2020/12/16/941292021/paycheck-to-paychec...
I know couples where both are doctors - household income it closer to a million/year - who still live paycheck to paycheck and have problems covering everyday costs like food and the car payments. You understand that the car payment are high end luxury cars. They also have the boat payment, the mansion payment. Even at that they might be okay if they weren't buying other toys every months with everything that might or might not be leftover. Understand too that trouble paying for food means the cheap takeout joint instead of the most expensive restaurants.
The point is if you don't take care there are a lot of things to spend money on. The poor in my experience tend to do slightly better with savings - they too have harder problems, but having had to live with nothing - instead of what feels like nothing but is really a lot - they will attempt to have some backup plans for when the money doesn't reach the end of the month.
The point is if you don't take care there are a lot of things to spend money on. The poor in my experience tend to do slightly better with savings - they too have harder problems, but having had to live with nothing - instead of what feels like nothing but is really a lot - they will attempt to have some backup plans for when the money doesn't reach the end of the month.
It's frequently the people that are unstable because they just don't save. I always think of my brother in law when I see stats like this. He would definitely answer truthfully YES to all 3 points while I would say NO to all 3. BUT somehow,
> He buys every new apple product on release day > He's had 3 brand new cars while I've driven my current car (my car is 8 years old now) > We can plan a family vacation 18 months out and when time comes he can't manage to pay for a <$1000 flight > He gets an inheritance and immediately posts pictures about shopping trips (it was ~$40K) while not being able to pay for flights I mentioned above > His only kid goes to a private school that he can't afford so has to be on payment plan which cost 10% more > He does "debt consolidation" then maxes out his credit cards > His household income is about ~$150K and they live in a small affordable town
Also he's in 40s and married with a kid. I think this is pretty "average" behavior unfortunately for Americans though.
> He buys every new apple product on release day > He's had 3 brand new cars while I've driven my current car (my car is 8 years old now) > We can plan a family vacation 18 months out and when time comes he can't manage to pay for a <$1000 flight > He gets an inheritance and immediately posts pictures about shopping trips (it was ~$40K) while not being able to pay for flights I mentioned above > His only kid goes to a private school that he can't afford so has to be on payment plan which cost 10% more > He does "debt consolidation" then maxes out his credit cards > His household income is about ~$150K and they live in a small affordable town
Also he's in 40s and married with a kid. I think this is pretty "average" behavior unfortunately for Americans though.
Alternatively, don't feed your baby processed crap food.
Please don't take HN threads into flamewar.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
This comment is wholly ignorant of the many good reasons one might have for feeding formula to a baby.
[deleted]
There are many reasons - medical, personal and otherwise, that families rely on formula.
Let me guess, zero children?
The same fraud could happen with other foods.
Shaming women for not breastfeeding is really shitty.
Agreed 100%, the pro-breastfeeding movement on the whole is a great movement that attacked some really bad medical advice from last century. But it has gone way too far, to the point that women feel ashamed or guilty for not being able to breast feed their child.
My wife had difficulties breastfeeding our daughter and ended up doing exclusive pumping for over a year. It was a huge strain on her, both mentally and physically. Then she still felt guilty for not being able to actually breast feed our daughter directly. Any woman that is able to provide any amount of breastmilk for any amount of time is an absolute saint. Women who can't or choose not to are also amazing and no one should be shaming or second guessing their choice on how to best take care of themselves and their child.
My wife had difficulties breastfeeding our daughter and ended up doing exclusive pumping for over a year. It was a huge strain on her, both mentally and physically. Then she still felt guilty for not being able to actually breast feed our daughter directly. Any woman that is able to provide any amount of breastmilk for any amount of time is an absolute saint. Women who can't or choose not to are also amazing and no one should be shaming or second guessing their choice on how to best take care of themselves and their child.
And really common. We've actually heard horror stories of the lactation nurses can be the worst. Personally, we're pretty open about the fact that my wife had a double mastectomy yet we still got "I would never" type of shade thrown our way for formula feeding. The struggle is real and it's not the right time to be shaming a new mother.
It's insane that anyone would try to shame a mother for things like this. As if their entire life at least for those first few months isn't already filled with self inflicted shame and fear of doing something wrong.
To add to that, while I agree that mother's milk is best, the difference is vanishingly small in most studies. We are talking about a few percentage points in aggregate, just enough to be statistically significant.
We had a good lactation consultant and I think she explained it well. All else being equal, breastfeeding is best. But if you have to choose between a mentally and physically well mother and breast feeding, I would choose a healthier mother, everytime.
To add to that, while I agree that mother's milk is best, the difference is vanishingly small in most studies. We are talking about a few percentage points in aggregate, just enough to be statistically significant.
We had a good lactation consultant and I think she explained it well. All else being equal, breastfeeding is best. But if you have to choose between a mentally and physically well mother and breast feeding, I would choose a healthier mother, everytime.
Pay attention to the tamper seal. That's all I could do. I bought all my formula direct at the grocery store after my Amazon experience