All True, but I think there is "one item that rules the all" :)
Exploitation. Our economic system is based on exploiting other people. We "had" the worst kind, slavery along with colonialism. Then we slowly moved to a combination of "unlivable" Wages and Undocumented Workers.
This allows the well off to live the good life. With the issues we are having now, we may need to move to a different system, but witch one ? Unfortunately the only way that has happened in the past is civilization ending wars (or something close to that).
To be clear, the article's hypothesis (which is buried deep into it):
The primary reason for our stalled progress on poverty reduction has to do with the fact that we have not confronted the unrelenting exploitation of the poor in the labor, housing and financial markets.
This. Except in america people are so attached to their comfort and convenience that even in the face of shocking levels of poverty, people fight tooth and nail against any single measure that might in any way encroach on that.
Eh... you have some valid points, but poverty has existed under every single policy regime so far. Ever. In history. So why should I accept that the root problem is bad policy instead of something else?
The article shows how poverty has gotten worse from certain policy choices (a little financial system deregulation here, a little union busting there, lack of housing almost everywhere, giving money to fund abstinence-only sex ed instead of to the poor, etc.).
Except that's not true, there was no poverty in all of North America, for example, up until a couple of hundred years ago.
In case this sounds snarky, let me be clear: this is a really important thing to consider (IMO): there are societies without poverty. It's just that most of us (reading this here today) are unfamiliar with them because they were and are actively destroyed by the poverty-having societies. (E.g. the destruction of the free pirates by the imperial navies. Destruction of Amazonians by loggers. I can list examples all day.)
By having a poverty-based system, you can force people to go into the armed forces and then use them to attack and destroy other societies to take their resources and expand your system. Without the "stick" of destitution no one will participate voluntarily in these unpleasant and unnatural systems. (E.g. people preferred Native American lifestyles to European American lifestyles. I've got a great quote from Ben Franklin on lock on that point, BTW...) The way it's usually framed is, "But who will pick up the garbage?"
People have died of disease in every policy regime ever; is all health care policy therefore indistinguishable? The same applies to crime, education, potholes in roads, and bugs in software - all software has bugs, so it doesn't matter how you code it or what tools you use.
I think the root cause is pretty clear actually. The vast majority of humans will never willingly reduce their quality of life to make a stranger's quality of life better.
> If enough workers in a specific economic sector — retail, hotel services, nursing — voted for the measure, the secretary of labor could establish a bargaining panel made up of representatives elected by the workers. The panel could negotiate with companies to secure the best terms for workers across the industry.
I'd be wary of these 'mega-unions' my SO has one here in Spain as she is a nurse and it hasn't been very good in practice.
They often side with the employer (in this case the Government) and then there is little recourse for the employees to find better conditions or pay as the agreements are for the whole sector.
That's not to say all unions are bad - it depends on the union, but having a few super unions seems to increase the probability you end up with bad ones.
Things in the US are a bit different - for starters, there is not such thing as the Spanish “convenio”, thus companies are left to set their own terms, which, in most cases, is the bare minimum.
Large unions do exist in the US, but again, they do not organise as their Spanish counterparts, as they only exist attached to a trade or industry. Thus, workers who want to organise, cannot just go and say “we are now represented by this or that union”, and if there is not an union to their trade, they would need to self organise into a small union, which obviously does not have the same bargaining power as a larger one, see the Starbucks employees unionising across the US.
Sounds like a kind of monopoly to me! But this time on labor-employer relations. As usual, competition is necessary to encourage constant improvement. Without competition, workers have no way to "vote with their feet" and leave an abusive or incompetent union.
I wonder if any countries regulate these kinds of unions as the monopolies that they are?
A "monopoly" refers to supply side, when one supplier is (or practically is) the entire market supply.
But on the demand side, the term is "monopsony."
For example, the US Department of Defense is (probably) a monopsony for fighter pilots. The classic example is the company-owned coal town.
Another term to remember is "regulatory capture." This usually refers to a government's regulators having their incentives captured by those they are intended to regulate. However, the incentive structures are more or less equivalent if an union is captured by a monopsony employer.
The amount of single parent households has 5X'd since the 50s. The US now leads the world in this measure.
This seems like such an obvious factor to leave out of an article like this. I have trouble believing it's not one of, if not the most important changes the US has gone through.
There is a strong correlation between poverty and single parent households[1 2 3]. However it is not a popular thing to talk about because it can feel like “blaming the victim”. But if we ignore it we can’t have productive conversations about how to solve poverty.
In the 1950s you could also afford to raise a family of 4 on a single (male) income. If a single mother's income today was comparable to a husband's income back in the 50's relative to cost of living, this wouldn't be an issue at all.
Or, you know, if we had any number of institutions in this country which are more common in the rest of the developed world, such as paid childcare and maternity leave, affordable healthcare and rent, real protections against discriminating on the basis of age&gender, etc.
You're comparing a dual-parent household to a single-parent household and claiming that if they made the same amount of money, the children would be equally well off. I'm not sure where you get this idea.
And there is ample evidence to suggest that the incentive structures created by the very same Great Society anti-poverty measures are the most responsible for this tragic fact.
> The deregulation of the banking system in the 1980s heightened competition among banks. Many responded by raising fees and requiring customers to carry minimum balances. In 1977, over a third of banks offered accounts with no service charge. By the early 1990s, only 5 percent did.
I would think that increased competition would improve conditions for customers?
I'm not in finance, but I think the 'deregulation' in question is actually this law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depository_Institutions_Deregu... . It 'deregulates' in the sense of making some mergers easier from a regulatory point of view, especially across state lines.
> I would think that increased competition would improve conditions for customers?
It did improve conditions for customers! As an example I currently bank with Ally, free checking account, no ATM fees (on any ATM, in/out network doesn't matter) and pretty sure they have good overdraft protection though I've never checked. Compare that to a place like BoA that has ATM fees, minimum account balances and fees, and while they probably have better overdraft protection than in 2008, it's probably not as good as what Ally offers.
The reason Ally can compete like this is simple, BoA and most other traditional banks have a ton of physical locations they have to pay to keep the lights on in, Ally on the other hand is entirely online. And while it may be nice to have a physical location for "peace of mind", in practice I found that it's usually better when the company (like Ally) puts the money into customer service so the phone gets answered when you call.
Honestly the biggest problem with Ally is that they are still a bit of a "savvy bank", that is if you ask any old joe on the street if they have heard of Ally, they would probably say no. Same goes for the litany of other new banks that have roughly the same business model as Ally. They would all be a great deal for those that are low-income but they aren't in your face like BoA or WF with their physical locations so people usually end up going to the "traditional banks" which are IMO not designed for them.
> the biggest problem with Ally is that they are still a bit of a "savvy bank"
Being savvy is one of the ways that people can lift themselves out of poverty. Unfortunately, there is no way to force people to be savvy, and there is also no way to make regular banks be like savvy banks.
Left unmentioned is that interest rates in 1977 were high (like 8 percent) so there were lots of ways for the bank to turn around and make money off customer deposits, without needing to charge the customer fees.
Since that time, interest rates have steadily dropped and that business model no longer works very well
I'm getting a little off-track here, and had the same reaction as you, but I think in general the idea that "as competition increases to infinity, consumer choice increases to infinity as well" isn't quite right.
I think there's an implicit assumption that as options increase, variability in those choice options offered increases as well, which isn't always the case.
To the extent that the competitors all are constrained by some common variable (a business model oriented around loaned money, for example), they will not vary along some variables, which might result in the absence of some critical choice option.
I guess I'm feeling nitpicky about this but sometimes I think the US really needs some collective reflection on the meaning of competition, who is supplying it (private, public, government, etc.), how it is attained (choice expression through monetary-based purchases or non-monetary mechanisms such as votes) and so forth.
Often I think you can think of government services or regulation as another competitive mechanism; it's just attained indirectly through votes, and might encourage competition in different ways (e.g., either by acting as a competitor directly, as in the case of the USPS, or by changing the constraint landscape as in the case of regulation).
Eh, that's basically moot in the discussion of why people are poor. People have to earn money to put in those accounts. Real wages have fallen for the past 50 years. The barrier to entry for any job has increased (criminal record issues, college, certifications, responsibilities of multiple roles being lumped together), and some classes of jobs (primary and secondary sectors requiring lower education/skill) have diminished.
Unions can organize all they want. Politicians can raise the minimum wage all they want. Those things don't fix the main problem that the making-things-here jobs that support wage increases across the board are absent.
My understanding is that low-fee accounts with low balances have never been profitable for banks. Perhaps they were used as a way to bolster the bank's image and/or as a long-term loss leader to attract customers who might eventually become profitable. As long as a bank has few competitors and those competitors are also subsidizing unprofitable accounts then everyone can afford to do so.
But this is an unstable equilibrium.
If competitors focus on attracting more profitable customers then I'd imagine that this subsidy becomes unsustainable as unprofitable customers migrate to banks with lower fees and minimums and profitable customers migrate to banks with higher rates. (Which those banks can afford to pay because they are no longer subsidizing as many unprofitable customers.)
First thought is that bank’s make their money from loans. As such the primary way they attract their actual customers is to keep interest rates as low as possible. Second thought is that the reason they want people to store their money with them is so they have more money to loan out. This means that the class of people who store little money with them, especially the people who are constantly near zero, are essentially using the services without providing a benefit to the bank in return. As such, increasing fees on those people would allow the bank to turn more profit without negatively affecting their actual business, or maybe even let them have slightly lower interest rates than their competitors due to a secondary income stream.
Or TLDR: People who don’t store much money in their bank account aren’t customers the bank wants if we ignore fees.
"deregulation heightens competition" is corporate lobbyist speak for "take power from the government of the people, by the people, for the people (supposedly) and give it to existing large corporations to be used against employees and any small competitors that offer things people actually want".
We need more housing; no one can deny that. But rents have jumped even in cities with plenty of apartments to go around. At the end of 2021, almost 19 percent of rental units in Birmingham, Ala., sat vacant, as did 12 percent of those in Syracuse, N.Y. Yet rent in those areas increased by roughly 14 percent and 8 percent, respectively, over the previous two years. National data also show that rental revenues have far outpaced property owners’ expenses in recent years, especially for multifamily properties in poor neighborhoods. Rising rents are not simply a reflection of rising operating costs. There’s another dynamic at work, one that has to do with the fact that poor people — and particularly poor Black families — don’t have much choice when it comes to where they can live. Because of that, landlords can overcharge them, and they do.
A study I published with Nathan Wilmers found that after accounting for all costs, landlords operating in poor neighborhoods typically take in profits that are double those of landlords operating in affluent communities. ...
Reducing the U.S. military budget by 20% and spending it on poverty relief programs could eliminate poverty to a large degree in the U.S. (not entirely, but that's unrealistic).
It's not that the government doesn't have the money or that we're not paying enough in taxes. It's that we're spending it on the wrong things (if we want to have a generally prosperous and stable society).
As the article rightly points out, the US has spent more money over time on the poor, not less, with middling effect. Whether or not the military budget is bloated, there's no evidence to suggest that yet more money for the poor would result in better outcomes.
Articles like this never address some fundamental questions that would be much more enlightening:
* Why does poverty persist in any country? Is there any country where there are no poor?
* It states that the percentage of the poor in the US stayed relatively constant over time. But is it the same people (and their descendants) who are staying poor, or are the poor of one generation (or their descendants) able to lift themselves out of poverty into a stable middle-class life?
Instead it chooses to frame most economic choices made by the poor as being "exploitative", and at the same breath blames payday loan companies for being predatory and yet posits that the poor need greater access to credit.
"and spending it on poverty relief programs could eliminate poverty to a large degree in the U.S."
No, it won't, assuming you're talking about existing programs. The current programs aren't designed to fix the problems the recipients face. They're merely designed to keep people alive (food, medical care, etc). They have absolutely nothing to do with getting those people jobs with pay high enough to exit the support system. Many of the people on those relief programs work, but simply don't make enough. So in that regard your last sentence allpies to your own statement: "It's that we're spending it on the wrong things".
As others have pointed out, the Child Tax Credit was a huge boon to low income families, but sadly discontinued since "cash handouts is socialism and in America, we believe in capitalism, darn it!" That's the type of program that could make a difference.
Giving people living in generational poverty a handout is the BEST way to keep them enslaved on government largesse. You need to take that money and invest in their neighborhoods and lift the entire neighborhood out of poverty by educating them. My God, how many eons is the saying "Give a man a fish..." been around? Yet the best idea we still have is to hand money out to absolve ourselves of collective guilt?
Look at San Francisco. Their homelessness budget is over $600 million a year, and yet, homelessness is the WORST its ever been. That's because homelessness "activists" keep the homeless as farm animals, living in homelessness without actually trying to help them elevate themselves. Look at the open drug markets and free access to drugs and needles they have. This is all to keep them enslaved in drugs and homeless without trying to help them.
Because if they solve the problem of homelessness, they won't have jobs anymore. They are like the pharmaceutical industry except at the grassroots level.
Poverty is cyclical. It continues because it's expensive to be poor, and one road block multiplies to many roadblocks.
You're upset about the SF homelessness budget and homelessness activists, but what is your solution? break up homeless camps and throw all their earthly possessions into a dumpster, then tell them to "elevate themselves" at the shelter where they're more likely to be assaulted and stolen from?
Or maybe send as many to prison as you can to "teach them a lesson"?
Can you point to a study where safe injection sites make drug problems worse?
Can you point to anything where its physically possible to "pull oneself up by their bootstraps"?
Look, I get it, you don't like looking at them, they make you feel bad, you don't want to see them as human. But you can't just solve poverty by telling the diseffected masses to become an entrepreneur.
> Giving people living in generational poverty a handout is the BEST way to keep them enslaved on government largesse.
in some cases that may be true; but UBI trials have also shown that they make a huge difference in people lives. It's not just the jobless/homeless, it's the working poor.
Putting cash into poor people's pockets is the best single way to spend the money, yes, but I think that article makes a great case that as long as banks, employers, landlords, etc. can take advantage of the poor, poverty will continue. So there has to be more of a policy component here.
Biden recently talked about limiting "junk fees" for example - we need more focus on stuff like that, and incidentally, these policies probably help all Americans.
There are many different definitions of poverty- but often, poverty is defined as a ratio or in relationship to others income. When using a definition like that, you will always have poverty in any state where you have any form of free monetary trade.
We can and we should do better. But we will never eliminate poverty so long as we want freedom of economic trade. (And use a definition that is relative).
I’m surprised the article presents an argument that welfare spending has increased from 1980 ($1,015) to 2016 ($3,419) as if that’s a big increase without even mentioning inflation.
$1,015 in 1980 is equivalent to $3,091 in 2016 dollars. So, it’s only a small relative increase, and as the article points out, it was mainly for Medicaid:
> Most of this increase was due to health care spending, and Medicaid in particular. But even if we exclude Medicaid from the calculation, we find that federal investments in means-tested programs increased by 130 percent from 1980 to 2018, from $630 to $1,448 per person.
$630 in 1980 has the same buying power as $2,007 in 2018. So it’s actually a reduction in spending outside of healthcare.
Readit News
1. Raising health care costs
2. Very little poverty spending actually goes to the recipients' pockets
3. Decline of union membership
4. Home ownership is out of reach and the rent is too damn high
5. Banking is expensive for poor people
Most of these issues can be traced back to corporate lobbying.
The moral of the story is that poverty is a policy choice.
Exploitation. Our economic system is based on exploiting other people. We "had" the worst kind, slavery along with colonialism. Then we slowly moved to a combination of "unlivable" Wages and Undocumented Workers.
This allows the well off to live the good life. With the issues we are having now, we may need to move to a different system, but witch one ? Unfortunately the only way that has happened in the past is civilization ending wars (or something close to that).
The primary reason for our stalled progress on poverty reduction has to do with the fact that we have not confronted the unrelenting exploitation of the poor in the labor, housing and financial markets.
Dead Comment
https://www.statista.com/statistics/233910/poverty-rates-in-....
In case this sounds snarky, let me be clear: this is a really important thing to consider (IMO): there are societies without poverty. It's just that most of us (reading this here today) are unfamiliar with them because they were and are actively destroyed by the poverty-having societies. (E.g. the destruction of the free pirates by the imperial navies. Destruction of Amazonians by loggers. I can list examples all day.)
By having a poverty-based system, you can force people to go into the armed forces and then use them to attack and destroy other societies to take their resources and expand your system. Without the "stick" of destitution no one will participate voluntarily in these unpleasant and unnatural systems. (E.g. people preferred Native American lifestyles to European American lifestyles. I've got a great quote from Ben Franklin on lock on that point, BTW...) The way it's usually framed is, "But who will pick up the garbage?"
Deleted Comment
I'd be wary of these 'mega-unions' my SO has one here in Spain as she is a nurse and it hasn't been very good in practice.
They often side with the employer (in this case the Government) and then there is little recourse for the employees to find better conditions or pay as the agreements are for the whole sector.
That's not to say all unions are bad - it depends on the union, but having a few super unions seems to increase the probability you end up with bad ones.
Large unions do exist in the US, but again, they do not organise as their Spanish counterparts, as they only exist attached to a trade or industry. Thus, workers who want to organise, cannot just go and say “we are now represented by this or that union”, and if there is not an union to their trade, they would need to self organise into a small union, which obviously does not have the same bargaining power as a larger one, see the Starbucks employees unionising across the US.
I wonder if any countries regulate these kinds of unions as the monopolies that they are?
A "monopoly" refers to supply side, when one supplier is (or practically is) the entire market supply.
But on the demand side, the term is "monopsony."
For example, the US Department of Defense is (probably) a monopsony for fighter pilots. The classic example is the company-owned coal town.
Another term to remember is "regulatory capture." This usually refers to a government's regulators having their incentives captured by those they are intended to regulate. However, the incentive structures are more or less equivalent if an union is captured by a monopsony employer.
This seems like such an obvious factor to leave out of an article like this. I have trouble believing it's not one of, if not the most important changes the US has gone through.
[1]https://post.ca.gov/portals/0/post_docs/publications/Buildin...
[2]https://ifstudies.org/blog/less-poverty-less-prison-more-col...
[3]https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/jul/04/half-of-all...
Or, you know, if we had any number of institutions in this country which are more common in the rest of the developed world, such as paid childcare and maternity leave, affordable healthcare and rent, real protections against discriminating on the basis of age&gender, etc.
I would think that increased competition would improve conditions for customers?
It did improve conditions for customers! As an example I currently bank with Ally, free checking account, no ATM fees (on any ATM, in/out network doesn't matter) and pretty sure they have good overdraft protection though I've never checked. Compare that to a place like BoA that has ATM fees, minimum account balances and fees, and while they probably have better overdraft protection than in 2008, it's probably not as good as what Ally offers.
The reason Ally can compete like this is simple, BoA and most other traditional banks have a ton of physical locations they have to pay to keep the lights on in, Ally on the other hand is entirely online. And while it may be nice to have a physical location for "peace of mind", in practice I found that it's usually better when the company (like Ally) puts the money into customer service so the phone gets answered when you call.
Honestly the biggest problem with Ally is that they are still a bit of a "savvy bank", that is if you ask any old joe on the street if they have heard of Ally, they would probably say no. Same goes for the litany of other new banks that have roughly the same business model as Ally. They would all be a great deal for those that are low-income but they aren't in your face like BoA or WF with their physical locations so people usually end up going to the "traditional banks" which are IMO not designed for them.
Being savvy is one of the ways that people can lift themselves out of poverty. Unfortunately, there is no way to force people to be savvy, and there is also no way to make regular banks be like savvy banks.
https://www.aarp.org/money/investing/info-2022/restarting-po...
Since that time, interest rates have steadily dropped and that business model no longer works very well
I think there's an implicit assumption that as options increase, variability in those choice options offered increases as well, which isn't always the case.
To the extent that the competitors all are constrained by some common variable (a business model oriented around loaned money, for example), they will not vary along some variables, which might result in the absence of some critical choice option.
I guess I'm feeling nitpicky about this but sometimes I think the US really needs some collective reflection on the meaning of competition, who is supplying it (private, public, government, etc.), how it is attained (choice expression through monetary-based purchases or non-monetary mechanisms such as votes) and so forth.
Often I think you can think of government services or regulation as another competitive mechanism; it's just attained indirectly through votes, and might encourage competition in different ways (e.g., either by acting as a competitor directly, as in the case of the USPS, or by changing the constraint landscape as in the case of regulation).
Unions can organize all they want. Politicians can raise the minimum wage all they want. Those things don't fix the main problem that the making-things-here jobs that support wage increases across the board are absent.
But this is an unstable equilibrium.
If competitors focus on attracting more profitable customers then I'd imagine that this subsidy becomes unsustainable as unprofitable customers migrate to banks with lower fees and minimums and profitable customers migrate to banks with higher rates. (Which those banks can afford to pay because they are no longer subsidizing as many unprofitable customers.)
Or TLDR: People who don’t store much money in their bank account aren’t customers the bank wants if we ignore fees.
We need more housing; no one can deny that. But rents have jumped even in cities with plenty of apartments to go around. At the end of 2021, almost 19 percent of rental units in Birmingham, Ala., sat vacant, as did 12 percent of those in Syracuse, N.Y. Yet rent in those areas increased by roughly 14 percent and 8 percent, respectively, over the previous two years. National data also show that rental revenues have far outpaced property owners’ expenses in recent years, especially for multifamily properties in poor neighborhoods. Rising rents are not simply a reflection of rising operating costs. There’s another dynamic at work, one that has to do with the fact that poor people — and particularly poor Black families — don’t have much choice when it comes to where they can live. Because of that, landlords can overcharge them, and they do.
A study I published with Nathan Wilmers found that after accounting for all costs, landlords operating in poor neighborhoods typically take in profits that are double those of landlords operating in affluent communities. ...
It's not that the government doesn't have the money or that we're not paying enough in taxes. It's that we're spending it on the wrong things (if we want to have a generally prosperous and stable society).
Articles like this never address some fundamental questions that would be much more enlightening:
* Why does poverty persist in any country? Is there any country where there are no poor?
* It states that the percentage of the poor in the US stayed relatively constant over time. But is it the same people (and their descendants) who are staying poor, or are the poor of one generation (or their descendants) able to lift themselves out of poverty into a stable middle-class life?
Instead it chooses to frame most economic choices made by the poor as being "exploitative", and at the same breath blames payday loan companies for being predatory and yet posits that the poor need greater access to credit.
No, it won't, assuming you're talking about existing programs. The current programs aren't designed to fix the problems the recipients face. They're merely designed to keep people alive (food, medical care, etc). They have absolutely nothing to do with getting those people jobs with pay high enough to exit the support system. Many of the people on those relief programs work, but simply don't make enough. So in that regard your last sentence allpies to your own statement: "It's that we're spending it on the wrong things".
As others have pointed out, the Child Tax Credit was a huge boon to low income families, but sadly discontinued since "cash handouts is socialism and in America, we believe in capitalism, darn it!" That's the type of program that could make a difference.
Look at San Francisco. Their homelessness budget is over $600 million a year, and yet, homelessness is the WORST its ever been. That's because homelessness "activists" keep the homeless as farm animals, living in homelessness without actually trying to help them elevate themselves. Look at the open drug markets and free access to drugs and needles they have. This is all to keep them enslaved in drugs and homeless without trying to help them.
Because if they solve the problem of homelessness, they won't have jobs anymore. They are like the pharmaceutical industry except at the grassroots level.
You're upset about the SF homelessness budget and homelessness activists, but what is your solution? break up homeless camps and throw all their earthly possessions into a dumpster, then tell them to "elevate themselves" at the shelter where they're more likely to be assaulted and stolen from?
Or maybe send as many to prison as you can to "teach them a lesson"?
Can you point to a study where safe injection sites make drug problems worse?
Can you point to anything where its physically possible to "pull oneself up by their bootstraps"?
Look, I get it, you don't like looking at them, they make you feel bad, you don't want to see them as human. But you can't just solve poverty by telling the diseffected masses to become an entrepreneur.
in some cases that may be true; but UBI trials have also shown that they make a huge difference in people lives. It's not just the jobless/homeless, it's the working poor.
Biden recently talked about limiting "junk fees" for example - we need more focus on stuff like that, and incidentally, these policies probably help all Americans.
We can and we should do better. But we will never eliminate poverty so long as we want freedom of economic trade. (And use a definition that is relative).
Using the BLS CPI calculator:
https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=1015&year1=198...
$1,015 in 1980 is equivalent to $3,091 in 2016 dollars. So, it’s only a small relative increase, and as the article points out, it was mainly for Medicaid:
> Most of this increase was due to health care spending, and Medicaid in particular. But even if we exclude Medicaid from the calculation, we find that federal investments in means-tested programs increased by 130 percent from 1980 to 2018, from $630 to $1,448 per person.
$630 in 1980 has the same buying power as $2,007 in 2018. So it’s actually a reduction in spending outside of healthcare.