My Blog List

Friday, February 14, 2014

Inequality – The Income Gap and Spending on Health Care


This morning a friend of mine who owns a small company with 124 employees was told his health care costs are going up 30%. In the past few weeks a lot of attention has been paid to the idea that the "rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer." People are rightfully concerned about the "inequality gap" that is growing in America. It appears that the spending on health care and this gap are very much related. David Goldhill in his very informative book, Catastrophic Care discusses this connection:

"In the decade before the recession— 1998 to 2008— the American economy grew by 25 percent and corporate profits grew by 54 percent. Yet average wages grew by only 13 percent. Cast your mind back to those good old pre-recession days. Liberals and conservatives argued furiously as to why the American worker seemed to be doing so poorly. Was it because of tax cuts, declining unionization, deregulation, or globalization? But while the data are difficult to measure precisely, President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors suggested an alternative leading cause: the explosion of employer health insurance costs. In its 2009 “Economic Case for Health Reform,” the CEA includes a chart which it says shows that the bulk of growth in compensation costs in the decade 1996– 2006 went to employer health premiums; in other words, spending on health insurance crowded out growth in wages. The CEA projected that more than 100 percent of the growth in future compensation could go to higher premiums. In other words, wages could actually decline over time to compensate for higher employer health costs."

David introduces us to one of his employees, Becky. He then goes on to break down her salary and benefits:
"Let’s say Becky’s work would be worth around $ 40,000 a year to us; if we can hire her for $ 40,000 or less, we’ll do it. What does hiring her cost? For simplicity, forget about all other benefits and costs for a moment and just focus on health care. Paying our share of Becky’s health insurance premiums will cost us about $ 5,000 a year. So the maximum salary our company will pay Becky is actually $ 35,000— the $ 40,000 her job is worth to us minus the $ 5,000 cost to us of her premiums. The more health insurance costs us, the less our company can afford to pay out to Becky or to any employee as salary or wages. Of course, all Becky knows is that her salary is $ 35,000."
David then goes on to analyze how much Becky will contribute to health care throughout her lifetime:
"Let’s assume that health care costs grow at only 2 percent a year— half of Becky’s income growth. This hasn’t been true for forty-five years, but we can always hope. Given all those factors, how much do you think Becky will contribute into the health care system for herself and her dependents over her lifetime? I’ll give you a hint: Becky will earn $ 3.85 million over her career.
The answer is $ 1.9 million!  Now also remember that $ 1.9 million was based on an assumption that health costs were somehow tamed below Becky’s income growth. In recent years , per capita health costs have actually increased 2 to 3 percent faster than income. If health costs grow merely equal to Becky’s income, Becky is looking at an additional $ 1.3 million in expenses over her lifetime— almost $ 3.2 million in total. In that scenario, Becky will contribute one out of every two cents she earns to our health care system."
 Back to my friend. At the beginning of the year, he was talking about raises for the people who work at his plant. With this 30% hit on insurance, that pool of money just dried up. So if you are wondering why we have an income gap and you are not getting a raise, I would recommend a discussion with the folks who are paying for health care on your behalf. The rich will have no problem in absorbing these costs. However, for the rest of us, we will all suffer a loss of income to pay for more health care, which is really sick care, but that is another topic.
 
Reference: Goldhill, David (2013-01-08). Catastrophic Care: How American Health Care Killed My Father--and How We Can Fix It (pp. 54-61). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

2 comments:

  1. Nicely laid out simple set of economics. You make a profit, non-salary costs go up so much, that the profit is eaten away ... Ergo, no wage rise. Hmmm ... Quite a cycle to break.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks David, the cycle is called "Dependence." A professor of mine from Cal State Dominquez Hills just advised me to read the following in the Wall Street Journal: How to achieve income equality [1]

    Current federal policies combines to redistribute $1.6 trillion each year to the bottom three income quintiles from the top two quintiles. [2] This does not therefore include the latest hike in top marginal rates or Affordable Care Act subsidies. More specifically for the most recent year for which data are available:

    The mean market income (wages, capital gains, interest, and health and retirement benefits) in 2012 was $81,600.

    A typical American family in the lowest quintile had an average market income of $9560 and received $21,158 from the government, or $9.62 for every $1 they paid in federal taxes of all kinds, so that it would need $50,882 more to reach the average.

    A typical family in the middle quintile had an average market income of $56,885 and gets $7376 from the government or $1.19 in government subsidies for every $1 paid in taxes, so needs $17,339 more to bring them up to the average.

    A typical family in the fourth quintile had an average market income of $100,240 and paid $4089 more in taxes than they received from the government. Thus, we would need to take $14,551from these families to bring their market income down to the national average.

    A typical family in the top quintile had an income of $311,400 and paid $65,573 more in taxes than they received from the government. Thus, we would need to take an additional $164,227 or 74% of income from them to lower their market incomes to the national average.

    Then, after the Feds got everything evened out (retroactively of course), differences in state taxes of all types would leave us unequal again.

    ReplyDelete