Re: Not always joking, it seems

Ted Nolan <tednolan> <tednolan> wrote:
> Keith F. Lynch <kfl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> I'm really baffled by that claim.  In 1967, the average one-income
>> family could afford to buy a house.  By 2005, the average
>> two-income family could not, even though 20-year mortgages had been
>> replaced by 30-year mortgages.  In 1967, nearly everyone could
>> afford medical insurance.  By 2005, tens of millions of Americans
>> could not.

> House sizes were in general much smaller in 1967, and they didn't
> have a lot of modern amenities.

If people today can afford small houses but not large ones with
amenities, why have house sizes and amenities increased?  Why isn't
the market providing what people can afford?

If house sizes have increased, it's because land prices have increased
to the point where anyone who can afford land can afford pretty much
any house that can fit on it.  And the obvious solution -- smaller
lots -- is forbidden by zoning laws.

> I suspect that insurance that only covered treatments available
> in 1967 would still be pretty affordable as well.

I'm sure tens of millions of people would side up for it, too.  When
someone has a heart attack, streptokinase, which costs a few dollars,
is almost as good as TPA, which costs tens of thousands of dollars.
So anyone who can't afford the latter gets neither?  That's just not
right.  And no, forcing everyone to pay for TPA whether they can
afford it or not is not the solution.
-- 
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html
before emailing me.