PPACA "Obamacare" and the GOP Government Shutdown

For those of you who know me, you already know that I tend to lean Democratic. I don't claim to be bi-partisan, but generally speaking I do hold some very Libertarian and Socialist views also. In fact, I even have some beliefs that are very right-wing. All of that said, the contents of this article will seem very GOP-bashing and/or pro-Democrat. Cest la vie. Get over it. I will present the facts and then my interpretation of those facts.

This article is intended to discuss why our government officials are so deeply divided and what the ramifications are of the Affordable Care Act. So let's get some of the basics out of the way first.

GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT PPACA

WHAT IS: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)?
PPACA, affectionately termed "Obamacare," is a piece of legislation that was introduced to our government in late 2009. It was sent through to Congress (which was Democrat controlled at the time) and approved. Subsequently, the Democratic Senate also approved this bill and it was ran to our president at the time, Barack Obama, who signed it in to law.

WHAT DOES: PPACA Do?
Well, PPACA does a lot of things. The bill is 2,409 pages long. If you wish to read it yourself please feel free HERE. In the absence of a desire to literally explain EVERY element of that many pages, let me summarize some of the larger aspects of this bill:

1. Pre-Existing Conditions: PPACA forbids insurance companies from denying a person coverage because of existing illnesses. It goes further to say that a given people of a given area that are the same age and non-tobacco users must be offered the same premium. This means that all 27-year-old people (male and female) in or around Minnesota who do not smoke MUST be offered the same premium as myself as I write this.
2. Minimum Standards: PPACA establishes a bare minimum for what a plan can provide you. Among these standards are the following: You cannot be dropped because you got sick, You cannot have price discrimination against you based on gender or pre-existing conditions, all children can stay on their parents insurance until the age of 26, Insurance cannot establish an annual or lifetime cap on essential services (ambulatory patient services; emergency services; hospitalization; maternity and newborn care; mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.), Essential services ( mammograms and colonoscopies, wellness visits,gestational diabetes screening, HPV testing, STI counseling, HIV screening and counseling, FDA-approved contraceptive methods, breastfeeding support and supplies, and domestic violence screening and counseling.) MUST be covered without copay/co-insurance/deductible
3. A fee is imposed to Businesses that employ 50+ people but do not offer insurance and on those that are not covered by insurance. It gets a little hairy here, but let me get you the basics. Your fee if you have no healthcare? $95/year. A business' fee for not offering it when they have over 50 full-time employees? $2,000/employee/year ($3,000 if they get insurance from PPACA) but both of these fees are scheduled to increase over time. There are subsidies that are available to any family that makes less than 400% of the current poverty line ($11,490 + $4,020 for each additional person in your family - so for my family $94,200) and for small businesses. If you don't make enough income, you are exempt from the law. If your employer only covers you and not your family, you are exempt. If you already get insurance from your provider at work you can opt in and get a subsidy as long as your offered insurance is more than 8.5% of your individual income or 9% of your family income, whichever is higher. WHOA THAT'S A LOT OF NUMBERS!!! Okay, here is the skinny. If you are poor, you are exempt. If you are rich, you already pay more. If you are in the middle and only the employee is offered insurance, you are exempt. Most other cases you will need either the employee plan, a PPACA plan, or you'll pay the fee which is considerably less but still will not cover your medical bills. It's a fee to compensate the rest of America because you are costing them money every time you go to the hospital without insurance.
4. PPACA plans must be offered through each individual state and they are encouraged to expand the Medicare, Medicaid, Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and Tricare programs. Each state will have a Marketplace, where competitive bids from insurance companies will be posted in four tier levels (Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum) of ascending costs and benefits. Medicaid is specifically expanded for individuals and families with incomes up to 133% of the federal poverty level, including adults without disabilities and without dependent children but also allows you to disregard 5% of your income, so it's really more like 138% of the poverty level. The problem is that several states have opted out even though it helps them get better at a lower cost. The Medicare program is improved so as to close up donut holes from Medicare Part D and make payments based on individual care not individual providers (I.E. If I break my arm it covers the fixing of that arm in one payment to the hospital, not 40 payments for the 40 elements that comprised that fix - WAY BETTER).

So that covers the bigger portions of what this does. This isn't by any means a definitive source as to what the exact rules are or even how they all apply, because there is much too much content for that here. Again, you are welcome to read the entire bill at your leisure through the link I provided above.

OUR CONGRESS AND THE HANDLING OF PPACA

So our Congress and our Senate have a problem. When this bill was passed into law, it was pushed hastily through by Democrats seeking to take advantage of a GOP-deficient government. We had the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. We were basically unstoppable. It's like when your brother gets to stay home from school after your mom baked cookies and when you get home the cookies are gone. The Democrats ate all of the cookies and the Republicans got mad. Understandably so. 

MYTHS

1. PPACA will cost us a lot of money: No - PPACA cuts 2 trillion from our deficit over the next 20 years (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/25/fact-check-repealing-obamacare-adds-to-deficit/)
2. PPACA causes our debt to increase: No. Debt is configured as "Gross Domestic Product" GDP vs. Existing Amounts owed. Capital Gains tax and the Bush-Era cuts lower GDP for us. Since capital gains are taxed lower, rich investors typically make their money by purchasing companies, downsizing, shipping jobs overseas (which they get a tax break for thanks to Bush), and then sell the company. That sale is a "capital gain" and is taxed lower than my paycheck but capital gains do not offer more GDP or jobs in America. They lower GDP and job growth, which increases the "indebtedness" to those amounts. Simple version: rich people are getting richer while decreasing jobs and increasing the national debt
3. PPACA Will drain our economy of resources: No. It will only drain the GOP and insurance companies of their resources. 
4. Congress has no reason to be upset: Yes they do. The law means they HAVE to take a plan from PPACA, meaning they no longer get those swanky plans from their providers but they have to pay more like the rest of us. 

SO HOW ARE THEY SHUTTING THE GOVERNMENT DOWN?

Republicans have tried more than five times in the last year alone to pass legislation that either de-funds PPACA or creates exclusions for themselves and other select groups (creating a privileged group). Every time these bills pass the house, the senate has rejected them. Republicans have sought a straight bill that allows people to decline PPACA (rendering it useless), they have tried other bills that say that money cannot go to PPACA, they have tried having bills that say that Congress and those in office do not need to take the PPACA insurance, and several other attempts. Since their other efforts have not worked, they are now working an angle to sneak the legislation about our healthcare into a budget that was already working. When the lawmakers in the senate noticed that they were trying to pass add-ons to the law that delay, de-fund, and leave members exempt they rejected it. Both the President and our Senate have said they will not partially fund our government (because that actually has a huge impact on foreign economy also) and they will not allow a budget law to be abused for personal party agenda such as repealing the effects of a law that passed the House and Senate and was found Constitutional.
As a result, the GOP lead Congress is refusing to assemble a bill that will not begin a systematic disassemble of "Obamacare" and because we passed the fiscal year for 2013, the funds that would be used to fund the basic elements that are shut down are locked up because we don't have an existing law to tell those funds where to go. It's like if you asked for $15 to go to a movie, but you only ask your mom for the $15 without saying what for. Your mom then asks, "What for?" Our government hasn't told mom what it is for, so mommy says no and 800,000 people are out of work, several people are going without WIC support, many headstart programs are shut down and lists taken apart, and other devastating affects while Congress enjoys their $132/day budget for "lunch" and their cozy, uninterrupted six-figure salaries.

WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL ABOUT A DEFAULT?

Well there are a ton of things to consider, but let's get to the most basic version of the problem. If we don't budget our money by a given time (November 1st at the latest) our government runs out of allocated funds to pay for certain things like Social Security, SNAP, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on existing debt. This part is substantial, but can still be mitigated through existing funds to avoid a "default" but at the same time you are then allocating funds that would be used to preserve the value of our other major value - treasury bonds.

Treasury bonds are considered to have the highest fidelity of any investment in the world as our government has NEVER defaulted. As in, ever. Like, we never actually have gone back on our promises to pay these, because we have simply increased our debt limit and allocated funding for these. It's a great system, but when we aren't furthering our agenda and are spending the money reserved for these on other assets, the power of the dollar decreases, which simultaneously decreases the value of the bonds. This is a normal process that happens at around a 2% margin whenever we increase the debt limit, but the rate of return is higher than that for the bond, so the maturation still exists. Without the increase in the limit, the value of the dollar will dip much further and cause a proverbial "spike" downward in the value of the dollar, which stimulates the sale of these bonds and subsequently a downward spiraling economy.

Now I'm going to get a little bit technical, so bear with it:
In traditional economics, the general model shows that austerity (paying debt) is good for the overall economy during recession because it provides confidence to the general public. This is seemingly logical, but if you evaluate using a new and more accurate (by data) model, it's not correct.

The SFB model for aggregate demand in relation to austerity shows that historically (during WWI and WWII) we had a massive spike in our deficit the likes of which we have never seen. The government actually does a tally of an average amount of money spent out of the american personal income (PCE) and the fantastic part about this is that, historically speaking, when our government runs up massive deficits our people generally have extra money and spend it more. 

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/PCE-Price-Index.php

http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/spending_chart_1950_2018USb_15s2li111lcn_G0t

So if we evaluate the data from these sources you can see that there are only two instances where the SFB Model for Aggregat Demand in relation to Austerity is proven wrong by the data. One period of time would be 2002-2004 and the other being from 2008-Now. The most common and definitive source to pinpoint with these lack of gains in PCE while experiencing a drastic increase in deficit is our manufacturing.

In the 80's our government (Both Bush Sr. and Clinton) signed into law some provisions that made sending manufacturing jobs overseas easier and cheaper. There isn't a law that specifically gives them "tax breaks" but there is a law that allows them a break for moving companies interstate or out of the nation. This combined with the fact that there are many nations overseas that allow for slave labor at massively lower wages while also doing little to no taxation on those revenues make other nations a safe haven for companies to manufacture and make untaxed revenue that is able to be funneled back to America at a very low rate because of laws that protect over seas revenue of domestic companies from over taxation. Ultimately this meant that more companies were sending jobs and manufacturing overseas.

This also lowers what our nation calls "Gross Domestic Product" or GDP. Coincidentally, GDP versus our existing debt is the primary way that we figure what the National Debt is. So these companies sending these jobs overseas lowers our GDP because we aren't making the product here. The consequence of that is a higher national debt, which concerns people. 

SO WHY ARE PEOPLE FIGHTING OVER THIS IF IT DOES BETTER FOR EVERYONE?

Of the top 20 people who get money from insurance companies, only 5 (FIVE) are Democratic,
one of which hasn't taken office, three of which vote in favor of GOP agenda and insurance
companies every time until it's a hot button issue (Max Baucus, Mark Warner, and Kay Hagan),
and one that outright votes for legislation regulating AHA 5 times, votes to make insurance
payouts for flood victims more difficult, votes against regulating private bribery to congress,and
votes against working Americans.


The fact is, of the top 20 people financed by Insurance companies seeking to dismantle AHA,
all 20 vote to help our government pay insurance companies and against regulating those
costs.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php...

https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/535/mark-warner...

https://votesmart.org/.../key-votes/8749/gary-peters...

https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/21082/kay-hagan...

http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/53315/max-baucus...

Short story? GOP/Republicans are in the pocket of Insurance companies. They get swanky perks from them, boat loads of cash, and some very nice health plans for pennies. Many things can contribute to different parties and that's a good thing. Democrats are largely funded by Lawyers and Lobbyists. The difference here is you don't see Lawyers and Lobbyists poaching on the people of America and you do see Insurance doing that. Additionally you see Congress that is funded by them voting in favor of Insurance companies. Facts are facts. GOP is lining their pockets with Insurance money and they don't want to let go.

The GOP (Republicans) are also very sheepish to mention that their primary financial contributors happen to be Healthcare and Insurance companies who have fought this bill tooth and nail. In fact, the ONLY reason that insurance is mandatory is because those insurance company lobbyists refused to entertain such legislature unless they forced everyone to have insurance

The GOP rep Ted Cruz recently went on record saying that this bill will cause work weeks to shorten to 29 hours for america's top employers. 9/10 of our top employers are slanted toward the GOP through financial investments to lobbyists who, coincidentally, lobby primarily for budget and healthcare. This is more like a threat versus an observation. The GOP has threatened and enacted an economic halt, have failed in legislature more than 40 times to negate the law, and are in the minority.

Sources:
GE Contributions are mostly Republican (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000125)

YUM! Brands (includes McDonald's) contributions also mostly Republican (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000029955)

UPS Contributions also mostly Republican (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000081)

(http://www.forbes.com/.../)

http://shopyourpolitics.com/

http://www.statisticbrain.com/u-s-largest-employers/

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=F


Every fiscal year our government sets a budget and that budget means that our debt has a ceiling. This allows for our money to hold a given value and several other purposes. When our government does not have a budget agreed to they typically have a Continuing Resolution (CR) that is passed which basically says, "we're gonna keep doing what we have been until we decide on a new budget." Republicans have made several attempts with the GOP Congress to pass laws that will render PPACA ineffective, including a suit with the Supreme Court, but more than 5 bills have been rejected prior to July 2013 that were designed to de-fund PPACA or leave certain rules/parties exempt and the Supreme Court found the law constitutional.

CONCLUSION

No one party has the whole answer. When Democrats rule, the poor take advantage of the wealthy. When GOP rules there is no such thing as middle class.

My strongest suggestions for improving our economy are the following:

1. Incentivize local manufacturing by lowering taxes for domestic manufacturing and increase taxes on manufactured product that is shipped into domestically located companies. This concept does two things. It creates a more competitive market for small and medium size businesses that originate here while creating opportunity for labor markets and decreased unemployment. The consequences of this being higher GDP and more job growth. The overseas tax should not exceed however the value of the less expensive labor overseas, as foreign trade markets are also volatile. 
2. Re-evaluate Capital Gains law. Large companies have shifted their sights to increasing their personal income through capital gains, or the purchase and subsequent sale of a given item or company. What this results in is companies being purchased and then liquidated for a higher resale value. This combined with the local incentives for manufacturing will promote traditional gains and higher GDP, which improve the overall wealth of our nation.
3. Allow for an expanding deficit in the wake of the enactments of #1 and #2. It has shown historically that when manufacturing jobs and gross domestic product are prevalent in our nation that a boom in Government deficit spurns a boom in consumer spending (PCE). Essentially the SFB model of Aggregate Demand dictates that the burden will either be on the government or on the people. If the people have the burden, money flow stops and the government suffers (recession - where we are now). If the government has the burden, the people spend and the government recoups funds due to taxation (everyone wins). 

Ultimately, I support a whole government overhaul similar to what Iceland did in 2011. In this specific case, I side with Democrats where I think it's absolutely INSANE to hold up a whole nation over something that you have failed to make happen more than 5 times and only oppose because the people who line your wallet oppose it. Although the Speaker of the House, John Boehner-R, and the Democratic Majority Leader, Harry Reid-D, are both dirty and lie to the American people(http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/sip-black-tea/2013/oct/2/boehner-reids-backroom-deal-keep-congresss-obamaca/). I assume most politicians do this and we need to start fresh, regulate incomes, and not allow significant donors from the private sector or influential businesses.

Pistols Versus Pen Strokes

Can someone please tell me what makes people think that the solution to their problems is to pick up a gun and go shoot people? I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would feel like this is a reasonable course of action. While I disagree enthusiastically with concepts of revenge, I can at least remedially understand the concepts of revenge and shooting or stabbing someone who has independently wronged you. It's absolutely heinous in either case, but at least the motivation of revenge against that person relates because we all have wanted to "get back" at someone and those who kill had a switch blow and no longer had the ability to filter the thought that they should get revenge. I get it. I disagree on an exponential level with it, but I get it.

Now why someone would decide that they need to go into a public area with the intent of causing as much harm as possible is beyond me. Was it for some sort of political statement? You just invalidated ANY kind of thought process you have had when you lost the ability to control your temper and gave up inhibitions. Not a single person with rational thought will side with your cause now. Was it revenge? Oh, so you're saying that ALL of the random people in that particular area were somehow doing something against you at that time? Would you say that maybe they were all conspiring against you then? What kind of purpose could you possibly have that would be propelled by doing something like that other than simply causing destruction? If all you want to do is destroy something go hunting and kill an animal. Then you can kill and you can sell the meat or whatever. It's not a good alternative, but ultimately I guess I'm happier with an ill-motivated hunt than killing people. Sorry animal rights activists. It's nothing personal.

Long ago in our country people actually believed that the pen stroke was stronger than the cannon but now we brandish fast-action cannons to write our statements in blood. What are we coming to? If you are making a statement to a larger government you are simply ignorant. We The People are still much stronger than the government because WE ARE the government. If you dislike what is happening so badly and you have the gumption to take a gun into a public place, why don't you start an actual protest? It works. Just ask Iceland. They did it in 2011 and ousted their whole government. Don't tell me stuff like that doesn't work. You can kill as many people as you like but you will only come to one of two points. Either you don't kill enough to have the majority and people lock you up or you kill way too many and people think you are a maniacal dictator.

For the love of humanity can we please start educating people more so we don't have unintelligent ego-maniacs running around with weapons believing they are doing something that anyone cares about? If you're that guy, just know this. There have been too many before you for you to even be noticed. Even if you're successful you will be forgotten about in less than 5 years. Nobody will care about what your name was. You will be nicknamed for the event you created and de-humanized for your complete lack of self-control. Nobody is going to give credence to whatever your issue is even if you paint it on the walls because the thoughts you have are polluted with the vile reek of hatred. Just stop. Rally some people to your side or actually take time to understand the obstacle in your way so you can overcome it, like EVERYONE ELSE HAS TO DO.

I'm Entitled and You're A Liar

Do you want to know what is really irritating? People who claim that Gen Y is "entitled" are irritating. I am a "ripe" 27 years old and I can tell you for sure that I am not "entitled" in the workplace or anywhere else. I have been provided some wrong information my whole life and as a result I was under the presumption that those lies would come to fruition and when they didn't my generation was fed up with it. Let's talk about a few of those lies.

The Lie: Get yourself a college degree because it will make you more money.
The Truth: A college degree is about as good as anything else when you are out of college and you are looking for a general job. Most of these degrees are used in fields that don't even come close to corresponding with their concentration and most of those jobs are NOT starting at the "median" wage you were expecting. Instead you are now in heaps of debt and you are likely starting at the same wage as some kid who just graduated high school and is sitting in the cube next to you. Congrats! You've made it.

A degree does offer you an easier time GETTING a job, but if it's not a specialized degree it's probably going to sit on the back shelf and collect you more debt and dust. If you do go to college, try not to spend a ton of money on a college unless that college can boast connections to a field you want to be in and can back that up. I personally attended a college that doted a program for being one of the best in the nation, and it was, but they offer no connections to that industry and it became more apparent to me in my sophomore year there and I dropped. College can be a good thing and it IS worth the money if the college can connect you with people who can get you places.

All of that said, if you want a job in a specialized field (Doctor, Lawyer, Pilot, etc.) you had BETTER get a degree because you won't be one without the degree.

The Lie: Hard work will take you to the top
The Truth: The concept of ladder motivation in the workplace is nearly non-existent in our day and age. Just because you work hard does NOT mean you will be promoted. It doesn't mean  you will get a raise. It means you will keep your job. Connections and likability are what get you further.  Knowing your value empowers you to make those moves.

I have worked several jobs where I had the "top" numbers and I have worked at places where I was in the middle and on the bottom of the leaderboard. Not one of those places where I excelled promoted me. Not one. Every "promotion" I have had was because I either got fired and demanded more from my next job and got more money or because I realized my company wasn't going to promote so I demanded more from the next place and quit. I worked at a grocery store and they had a program where you get these buttons for your apron when a customer says you were great to a manager. I had several times where I did this. One time I was wearing Crocs in the middle of January and a customer had their car stuck in the foot of snow that was coming down. I went out and pushed them out and they called in to tell the manager how great I was. The manager laughed and looked at her friend and said, "they must have been drunk." I had another occasion where a hispanic man who actually WAS drunk fell back and smacked his head on the floor. He was conscious but there was some blood on the floor. When the paramedics arrived I was roughly translating the paramedics questions to this customer and the paramedic told the manager that I did them an invaluable service. Neither of these occasions earned me one of these pins.

Your hard work and extra motivation will only get for you what you demand of it. If I had demanded my pin for doing those things I would have gotten them. I was soft and weak and in the end those pins weren't worth the fight but it still proves the point. I didn't move anywhere or do anything because I wasn't very good socially with the managers above me and I didn't have that connection. Parents and teachers should be teaching how to create those connections because THAT is what takes you places. That and KNOWING YOUR VALUE. (more on that later)

The Lie: When you graduate you will be able to support yourself.
The Truth: Up until 2008 this was relatively true, but then people realized that the upper class (wealthy) are poaching on the middle and lower classes. Here's how it works. The rich people in our country run businesses. There are many dynamics that dictate our economy, but one of the most basic concepts is the idea of money flow versus rate of inflation of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). What this essentially means is something to the effect of, "How much money are we paying for things versus how much money we are making." When the cost of living increases, wages should increase by the same margin or more to compensate. If wages increase more then money flow increases (because people now have expendable money). If they do not then it remains the same. If wages increase less then the money flow slows down and the economy suffers.

What does all of this mean? It's simple. It started long before 2008, but October 2008 the problem reached it's metaphorical "event horizon" and there was no escape. Gas prices started inflating in the early 2000's exponentially. They nearly tripled actually. The cost of gas (crude oil to be more specific) being so much more puts strains on businesses who need product moved and as such all of these other products hike their costs to offset the expenditure. This is 100% okay when the wages increase for everyone. To the businesses this seems like a one-two punch, but really it's a sacrifice in the short game to make more in the long game. If minimum wage increases in-sync with the gas cost then what happens is the company compensates by inflating their cost and if they can do so in a way that the inflation doesn't exceed the consumer burden (meaning if they can raise prices and pay their employees more) they lose "margin" but make more money. They won't make as much a % profit on any one given item, but because the workforce has more expendable money they sell more product at a slightly smaller profit. Still too confusing? Here:

ABC Company makes Product X for $20 but it costs them $2 to make. That's a margin of about 90% increase. Hooray.

Sally works for ABC Company and makes $7/hr. So she is now reducing their margin to about 55%. They have other expenditures to keep the place open and such, so in reality ABC Company at $20/Product X is probably netting themselves somewhere in the margin of 20-25%. That's actually not bad for a net margin but because it would take people like Sally 4 hours of work (after taxes) just to purchase 1 Product X they only sell say, 1000/ year.

Now let's say that the cost of gas increases and minimum wage is raised to say $10/hr. Well that now drops their margin to a mere 40% and after other costs they are probably closer to 5-10% margin at $20, but they need to mitigate cost so they raise their price to $25.

At $25 they are now back to 52% margin (yes less) but now Sally can buy 1 Product X for only 3 hours of work (after taxes) and have money to spare, so she is happier at work and ABC Company sells more of their product. They sacrifice the 3% to get more business.

Companies don't do this. The rich people say, "oh, you increased my cost? Better fire the people making too much money, hire cheaper labor, send some jobs over seas, and hike the prices. We might be able to even GAIN some margin here!"

All of this means it is increasingly difficult to support yourself out of high school . The average wage in the USA is between $8-$9/hr. and most jobs are now part-time (30-35 hours/week). Assuming the high end of that scale you make $315/week pre-tax. That's a grand old $16,380 a year. So you are working two jobs (assuming you can hold both and keep those hours) and you make $32,760. Well, you're going to spend about $3k of that on gasoline alone. (http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/05/report-u-s-households-spend-record-amount-on-gas-in-2012/). You are going to drop about $11,180 on average for rent (http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/home-front/2012/04/27/rents-rise-while-home-prices-fall). On average you will probably drop close to $6,443/year on food. (http://tlc.howstuffworks.com/family/average-american-grocery-bill.htm). Assuming you were conservative and bought a used car, on average you will spend about $4,212/year on that (http://www.cnbc.com/id/48844052).  At this point you ALREADY need to have that second job or you are under water by about $4k, but we haven't included utilities.... Utilities on average will set you back $1200/year if you live like a pauper. (http://ohmyapt.apartmentratings.com/breaking-down-the-average-utility-costs-per-month-whats-normal.html#b). Average hygeine is likely to set you back about $1k a year and clothing another $1k. You're probably dropping about $500 a year on that cell phone plan, about $1k a year for your TV, about $500 a year on internet, and we haven't even considered that you might have some loans to pay back for your education. Let's assume that you are incredibly fortunate and only pay $150/mo. for your loans. You are now dropping about $1500 a year on that. Car insurance will set you back close to another $1k (probably more if you are actually this young - but I'm being conservative). Your health insurance is likely to cost you close to $4,565 a year (http://kff.org/private-insurance/report/2013-employer-health-benefits/) so now even with the two jobs and working 60-70 hours a week with no other members in your home you are at a negative of $1,643. So you will proably have to cut out that TV, Internet, and probably skimp on clothes because that phone bill is already a minimum plan and you need a phone for safety reasons. Did I mention that all of this was based on your $32,760 being PRE-TAX?

So if you work two jobs making $9/hr and each give you 35 hours a week on average you can break even if you live in a small apartment, don't eat out, don't have TV or Internet, don't spend much on clothes and keep the lights off most of the time.

No. You cannot support yourself straight out of high school or college. Stop saying, "You should be able to." It should be possible to. THAT is an accurate way of saying it because they are saying that it's not the way it should be, and it isn't. Stop thinking that this is the 90's, 80's, or even one of the golden ages before then.

CONCLUSION (I know it's been a long time coming)

To the Gen X'ers and Boomers: Stop telling Millenials (Gen Y'ers) that we are entitled. We aren't entitled. We want the very best like we were promised and it was all torn out from under our feet while most of us were in college. Gen Y'ers now make up the majority of the management workforce in the workplace and we are very concerned with what will do better for us. There is a value for technology and a value for an ability to work smart instead of working harder. If one of us is your manager or you know one of us it's really simple, don't assume we are entitled. Assume we want the very best and if you aren't it then we will find what it is. We aren't a generation that is one to help you become the best. We were bred on the concept that we were all competing to be the best. My high school classes highest GPA was a weighted 5.2. We strive to be the best and expect to be rewarded for doing so. We don't believe in the "everyone gets a participation medal" but we do believe in the "everyone can be #1 and all cultures are important" mentality.

We are not lazy. We appreciate the value of working smart instead of hard when possible because of maximum output. You should value this.

We are not entitled. We understand that you may not understand the technology as it is coming out but we DO think that we can use it in ways that will help improve business while also working smarter and faster. It's not entitled to want an iPad to do my job with if that means I can now do the work of 3 people for you. That's a desire to be more effective. You should value this.

We are not needy. We are constantly on a mission to be better than the other person next to us. We were raised under the notion that we should be the best and we should work the hardest. Since we all want to do better and continuously improve, we want your feedback. I want to know if I am not doing something as effectively as you want BECAUSE I WANT TO BEAT YOUR EXPECTATION! If I have come to you multiple times to get feedback it's because you were so nonchalant the first time around. Give me legitimate feedback even if it's hard to hear. I would much rather hear about how terrible a job I am doing so I can do better than to find out one day I don't have a job.

We aren't narcissistic (clever word you guys but we know what it means). We were promised to have tons of job opportunities with the education we got and they weren't there. We were promised to be paid well and the average income is $8-9/hr in the USA. We want to do the best for ourselves because it is what we were promised. When a millenial is trying to get more for themselves it is because we have ambition to succeed. Mark Zuckerberg (founder of Facebook) is the 2nd youngest self-made billionaire in the world. We know how to succeed and we have lofty goals but we also are inclusive of most cultures and generally want to help and teach others.

We aren't disloyal. We simply have ideas on where we want to be. I have worked a ton of jobs and while I don't necessarily know where every move was taking me, I DO know that every change was an opportunity and between 2008 and 2013 I have aggressively seized that opportunity and dramatically improved my results. If you aren't providing a way for a millenial to get what they need/want they will find another way to get it. Plain and simple. We aren't the type to settle. We adapt and improvise. It's not disloyal. If you explain to me rationally how I can patiently wait and what steps to take to move forward I am happy to be loyal to you in that chain. If you simply do not afford any improvement I will look elsewhere under the notion you don't have anything further to offer, which might I add has proven true several times in my life.

To my fellow Millenials (Gen Y'ers): Here are a few tips on things that you can do to make transitions easier for other people and tips that I have had to learn first hand:

1) Know Your Value - If you only think you are worth $30k/year you have NO RIGHT to ask for a penny more than that because you will not offer them a penny more in value for their money. People who are making more money do so because the services they provide the company warrant it. If the services didn't the company wouldn't pay them for it. If you are worth $200k/year then know you are and own it. Don't accept less than that unless you are in a position where you NEED to (currently unemployed, etc). In those cases you always accept a step up from where you are at.

2) You Are Never Better Than What You Are Doing - If you are working at McDonalds as someone who takes orders, you are never above it. You are never below it. It is what you do to get from A to B. I have done a lot of things in my life (Hospital sanitation, grocery store cashier, gas station attendant, jewelry salesman, collections, staffing, telemarketing, business development, unemployment, bus boy, cook, manager, clinical research test participant, plasma donor, Card Shop Operator, janitor, etc.). I was never above any of those positions even though I thought several times that I was.

3) You Never Deserve To Be Above Your Superior - When you are hired by someone, you have a couple of responsibilities. One of them is to do what they are asking you to in exchange for your pay. The other is to make your manager look as good as possible to the person above them. It doesn't matter if you are SMARTER, MORE TALENTED, FASTER, WISER, or any other "ER" because you haven't put in the time to be in the position that they have. If they don't deserve to be there, the person above them will decide that. If they are the top and they own the place, you have no right to say so anyway because they are doing YOU the favor of employing you. If you do well at your job and you make the person above you look better, eventually when that person is rewarded you stand a better chance of receiving some of those benefits also. They are not obligated to share them with you - so don't EXPECT it. Just realize that they will favor you anyway because you do better for them. At best it means you move up in the company or get more money. At worst you have an excellent reference for your next position.

4) People Who Are Older Are Wiser Than You - Maybe they don't know how to sync everything up on iTunes and maybe they don't know how to access the public WIFI. Those can be taught. They know more about discipline and how to position yourself within the company than you do. Respect them for that. They were where you are at one point and likely have a lot of insight to help you get where you want anyway. Often times I have spoken with people older than me and realized that, while they don't realize the error of their ways while speaking to me, I am able to see the flaw simply because they are telling me the "horror" story of when they were in my position. We may be more tech-savvy but they have more life experience. Credit them for that and learn from them. Value them for it.

5) Sometimes You Need To Sacrifice - I have held several positions and there are several times I have moved up because of a play I made to get what I needed. That said, I do well now because I sacrifice time with my family (I work 60-70 hours a week). I do what I can to enjoy my time with them as much as possible, but EVERYTHING comes with a sacrifice. If you want more money you will give up family and friends to get it unless you are VERY lucky. If you want more freedom you will give up money. If you want a family you will give up some of your own personal ambitions. Sacrifice isn't a bad thing. It's simply a way of measuring what is more important to you. I could aggressively put more time into work and make MUCH more money, but I value my family and I am happy where I am at. There is a balance there as there should be with everything.

Matt 6:21 "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."


Thanks for reading and God Bless.