How many Zuckerbergs does it take to pay for Medicare for All?

One = 80 billion dollars.

The New York Times recently presented five estimates for Medicare for All.  They average out to 3.3 trillion dollars per year to fund Medicare for All.

So, how many s would it take?

The answer is 41 full Zucks and one quarter-Zuck.

That’s how many s you need every single year.

We don’t got ’em.

 

Chelsea Clinton is dependent on wage income

Without her ability to use her family connections to get high wage 500-600k/yr jobs, her ability to have three kids in 5 years in NYC would be very constrained, as her net worth of $15 million consists primarily of an expensive apartment and a stock portfolio a non-elite STEM(edical) worker  could have accumulated.  Her husband’s net worth as a stereotypical seven-figure bonus finance guy has more liquidity, perhaps, but it could easily be tied up in high-return private-access assets.

There are lower-tier versions of Chelsea Clinton, racking up degrees in between taking well-paying nonprofit and university administration jobs in the most expensive metro areas, but they get a lot less, more like 100-200k/yr and tend to correspondingly be childless long term whether married or not or have 1 pregnancy’s worth of kids (usually 1 but sometimes 2).  And of course, the lowest-end of them are increasingly unmarried if they do become mothers.

What’s telling about this is that Chelsea Clinton is part of the broader political discourse pool arguing that such levels of wage income are too high and need to be taxed so much more, or simply made impossible to achieve at all without political and family connections by having essentially infinite job competition at all levels of education via a global labor market rather than a nation or region-bound one.

As a side note for a future discussion, Chelsea Clinton has also been given positions where the wage was low/honorary but the stock compensation was equivalent to a “bottom of the top” STEM(edical) salary (200-300k).  This structure of compensation is very important and has had far-ranging implications w/r/t family formation and politics over the last 25 years.  But this post is just about a child of elites who still has to get paid a wage to afford her relatively “bottom of the upper-class” lifestyle.

A PhD in three years? Maybe.

I’m an uneducated housewife.  However, I’m working on PhD-level work (at least, nobody without one appears to be doing what I’m doing, ‘cept me), so there is a small chance I will end up with one anyway.

It’s pretty clear I’ve been struggling quite a bit because I didn’t want to admit the situation was what it was.  It’s hard to accept I might have to work with people whose entire lives are devoted to views and practices regarding education that have directly made my life incredibly difficult and made educating my own children a home-based project, but I’m probably not going to be able to stay on schedule without accepting that it may be what I have to do to complete the mission.

So this is acceptance.  Also, about the only detailed public comment I’m making about Project Y’ this year and maybe next.

When sociologists destroyed the middle class.

I have a stack of sociology and demographics books I have just barely started in on, but one notable feature is that they use “upper middle” and “lower middle” to split the middle class into two halves.  It’s a deliberate use of terminology to eliminate the conceptual notion of a broad middle class when doing social analysis.

The upshot is, of course, that college and university credentials are pretty much always “upper” regardless of pay level, while exam-based credentials and trade licenses are always lower.  It’s the darnedest thing.  The dental hygienist by the sociological split is lower-middle because it’s usually a certificate program, but the claims processor for the dental office is upper-middle because you need a college degree for her job.  Both pay pretty similarly, but that isn’t the point.  Public school teachers are upper middle as well by this professional sociological view, but daycare employees are lower middle.

And yes, the average IT worker is lower middle because not only can you still get a job without a four year degree, there is a system of hiring “outside the box” evolving to codify the process. But the project manager making half to a third of the money is upper middle because there is no way to get that job without a degree.

Class anxiety is a thing, and one way to mask it is to carefully define big chunks of STEM as lower middle in a formal taxonomy, or simply only talk of “upper middle” in terms of doctors, lawyers and other pre-internet professions.  The blue/white collar melding that the T and E in STEM tend to represent doesn’t lend itself perfectly to the university-based degree march, so it’s easier for (usually) lower-earning class-anxious college graduates with three degrees to pretend they don’t exist and that the ones who do are just lower middle and overpaid anyway.

It’s also easier to codify the whole process to make it look scientific and “evidence-based”.

So the people who study middle classness don’t, for the most part follow the popular three-tier split into upper middle, middle middle and lower middle.  It’s A or B for them.