|
baw posted:Just ask them why they think their core axiom (free market is always better) is true, and don't let them avoid the question. One thing that really demonstrates how Free Markets fail is the "forward falling (inverted-S shaped) labour supply curve"  I'm not an economist so if someone can explain it better, please do, but here's my attempt. This chart shows the labor supply for an entire family. As you move up and down, the amount of labor that the family wants to provide moves left (less) and right (more) Econ101 logic suggests at a low price there will be very low supply, why work for a penny an hour. At high prices the labor supply will be huge, for $1000 an hour I'll work 169 hours a week! Let's start at point C: As the wage goes up, labor supplied goes up too, just as you'd expect. It keeps going until it hits D. At that point, the family (or maybe just the adults, I don't have the article that goes with the image) is working their asses off but they're also paying the bills. If you increase the wage more, they want to work less, maybe the mother goes part time to raise the kids and the teenage son spends his time after school playing a sport or something. From that point forward the more you pay, the less labor available because work is competing with leisure, and leisure is valuable when the bills are getting paid. Lets go back to point C: As the wage goes down, labor supplied goes down as you'd expect. But at C' the curve bends, it may suck to work low wages but at a certain point your leisure becomes worthless because you can't feed the kids. At this point wages go down but labor goes up up up! It starts to meet up with that labor subsistence curve which represents the bare minimum. (notice that at high wages it only takes a few hours to meet the minimum while at low wages it takes a ton of time to earn that much.) It keeps going until it hits A, the maximum labor available to the family. Every waking moment is devoted to work. Below that point the curve sorta trails off in a dashed line. I assume that represents the family spending less time working and more time digging up graves looking for food.
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 03:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 08:25 |
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:It keeps going until it hits A, the maximum labor available to the family. Every waking moment is devoted to work. Below that point the curve sorta trails off in a dashed line. I assume that represents the family spending less time working and more time digging up graves looking for food. That is an incredibly depressing line graph. 
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 06:11
|
|
|
So I just got hit with this quote,quote:their wages are kept at minimum wage. if minimum wage is below the poverty line, that is the governments fault, not waltmarts. Also, $7.25 an hour would be fantastic if it wasnt for the government affecting monetary policy decisions. If it werent for the federal reserve, $7.25 would be fantastic, but artificially low interest rates rob wealth from everyone. dont blame hostess; dont blame walmart. Don't blame the minimum wage. blame the federal reserve act of 1913. In regards to pointing out that something like 40% of Wal-Marts employees are eligible for food stamps and that Hostess wasn't destroyed by their unions but by incompetent management. Anyone have a good rebuttal to this?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 07:23
|
|
|
Ramadu posted:So I just got hit with this quote, Ask them if it's alright to raise minimum wage.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 07:24
|
|
|
Ramadu posted:So I just got hit with this quote, It's nonsensical. Monetary policy has been to keep interest rates too low, but also at the same time has eroded the value of currency through inflation? The bit about the purchasing power of a minimum wage income is dumb, too.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 07:39
|
|
|
Ramadu posted:So I just got hit with this quote, Surely he'll agree that Minimum wage should get adjusted to match inflation. That'll ensure that monetary policy doesn't hurt our most economically vulnerable citizens.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 10:23
|
|
|
quote:First they came for the gun owners, Obama... the same as Hitler...
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 15:29
|
|
|
Nobody has come for anyone. The best thing about this AP scandal will be watching hard-right pundits bend over backwards to suddenly defend and protect the "lamestream media" just because Obama = bad.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 15:31
|
|
|
djw175 posted:Ask them if it's alright to raise minimum wage. Ask them if they also hate the vaunted middle class since pre 1913 most Americans lived in pretty terrible poverty.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 15:34
|
|
|
Dr. Tough posted:Obama... the same as Hitler... Gun control, harmless IRS attention, and what was most likely a fully legal subpoena of records...the same as genocide...
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 22:01
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Gun control, harmless IRS attention, and what was most likely a fully legal subpoena of records...the same as genocide...
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 22:34
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I'm not sure why this is being dismissed. What they're talking about looks like part of the Obama's administration program of getting at whistleblowers instead of at what they are actually blowing the whistle about, which is a legitimate complaint, especially considering repeated pre- and post-campaign promises for transparency. There's a big thread where we're debating that. Given where the subpoena came from it's highly likely there was a judge's approval and the story in question wasn't 'whistleblowing' it was just normal leaking.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 22:56
|
|
|
 Reminder: my aunt was the one who got desperate after she got sick after being laid off and tried to get her Obamacare by going to a hospital and asking for her free universal healthcare, and then when she was told she doesn't get free universal healthcare, she concluded that it's not for white people because she saw black people being treated at the hospital.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 00:57
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:
So it was probably deleted for account inactivity or something, right?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 02:07
|
|
|
My New Year's Resolution is to respond to more things with "fascinating about the white people!"
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 03:50
|
|
|
THE GAYEST POSTER posted:My New Year's Resolution is to respond to more things with "fascinating about the white people!" The only group that turns on others then itself while getting a free pass for both.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 03:56
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:
"Blogs," because without the quotes they'd seem like actual opinions.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 03:58
|
|
|
Back in October, I had a nasty FB argument with a guy and his wife about Voter ID. They both insisted that real Americans who want to engage in democracy would find a way to get photo ID, even if they're elderly, sick, disabled, living in rural areas with no easy access to acquire ID, and/or poor. I challenged him to volunteer for a local political campaign's get out the vote effort. "Shucks, Republican candidates will be hurt by this too!" I said. "Call up Mia Love's campaign and offer to drive people to the polls on Election Day, or help people get registered. Put your money where your mouth is!" Pretty sure he blew me off. I don't know why it just occurred to me today, but guess which Republican candidate lost by less than 2% of the vote?  I'd like to think a whole bunch of people in that district were like, "All the other redblooded USAmerican Republicans will find a way to the polls, so I don't need to worry about this!"
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 15:21
|
|
|
Dr. Tough posted:Obama... the same as Hitler... As a conservative they came for him on the second line. Did they come for him twice?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 16:34
|
|
|
Scandal talk turns into poo poo, right before your very eyes! Ugh, my Facebook is usually fairly free from this poo poo too.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 05:13
|
|
|
SpecialK2 posted:Scandal talk turns into poo poo, right before your very eyes! Ugh, my Facebook is usually fairly free from this poo poo too. Democrats in the senate voting to keep the war going. It's almost like this countries problem is having two partys that lean to the left.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 06:54
|
|
|
I'm not going to post some img macro or meme because it's been done to death but seriously the first rule of Facebook debate is not to loving bother.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 14:41
|
|
|
You don't argue with children about politics, do you? Well think about how much political education the average American has, and realize that that's exactly what you're doing when you engage with these folks on Facebook. That goes for liberals and conservatives (the only two choices to the politically uneducated).
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 15:17
|
|
|
Radbot posted:You don't argue with children about politics, do you? Well think about how much political education the average American has, and realize that that's exactly what you're doing when you engage with these folks on Facebook. That goes for liberals and conservatives (the only two choices to the politically uneducated). Several polling companies, I forget which off-hand, define a "high-information voter" as someone able to name the Vice President, which party controls the House of Representatives, and name at least one of their Senators. This is a high-information voter. They make up a miniscule amount of the populace compared to low-info voters.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 15:36
|
|
|
Radbot posted:You don't argue with children about politics, do you? Well think about how much political education the average American has, and realize that that's exactly what you're doing when you engage with these folks on Facebook. That goes for liberals and conservatives (the only two choices to the politically uneducated). I don't think this is an apt comparison. Children lack social context within which to discuss political ideas and concepts; the issue with discussing with adults seems to me to be a problem with either misapplying social context in an illogical or irrational manner (e.g. faulty reasoning) and an unwillingness to critically consider one's own positions and test intuitions based on personal experience against broader external evidence. Mo_Steel fucked around with this message at 15:41 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 15:36
|
|
|
That seems like it's worse. I'd rather argue with someone who isn't aware of social context than someone who misapplies it in bad faith.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 15:41
|
|
|
Radbot posted:That seems like it's worse. I'd rather argue with someone who isn't aware of social context than someone who misapplies it in bad faith. I'm not saying it's necessarily in bad faith; children are more open to new ideas than adults are, and being open to at least giving consideration to new ideas is basically required for a good conversation. This seems particularly true for beliefs that people internalize; when a belief becomes a part of who you are it's going to be difficult to consider challenges to that idea as anything but challenges to you as a person. Really I guess what I'm saying is that critical reasoning should be a core educational requirement from say 6th grade through graduation and into college. And so as not to come off seeming like a god of reasoning looking down at all the pitiful peasants who cannot see my truth, I am absolutely certain I make terrible arguments when I should give more thought to alternative viewpoints.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 15:56
|
|
|
It's also kind of a dick move to assume everyone is literally a child, as opposed to you, the smart and enlightened one.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 16:22
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:It's also kind of a dick move to assume everyone is literally a child, as opposed to you, the smart and enlightened one. Well, if by smart and enlightened, you mean I don't post "if you still think Obama is a good president, you should be punched in the throat until you die", and that I'm willing to hear your viewpoint without saying you're subhuman filth, then yeah, I guess I am. I'm by no means smart and enlightened when compared to an academic or even a good D&D poster, though.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 16:49
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:I am absolutely certain I make terrible arguments when I should give more thought to alternative viewpoints. This puts you miles above the people who would never admit to having incomplete information or biases.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 18:12
|
|
|
Much like Freep, I really try not to touch the poop, I didn't post in that thread because it's pretty clear that it would be an uphill battle, and by uphill I mean up a cliff.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 19:31
|
|
|
SpecialK2 posted:Scandal talk turns into poo poo, right before your very eyes! Ugh, my Facebook is usually fairly free from this poo poo too. I am an average twentysomething let me tell you about transparency in the Nixon Administration.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 20:31
|
|
|
An acquaintance in the military posted this:quote:
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 02:56
|
|
|
ZDar Fan posted:An acquaintance in the military posted this: Glad those arrows are there, I never would've seen the marines in that busy crowd otherwise. 
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 03:09
|
|
|
ZDar Fan posted:An acquaintance in the military posted this: I was far from "gung-ho" when I was in the Navy, but I would have eaten my dixie cup for a chance to hold an umbrella for a president. If the marines in the picture have even the slightest issue with the jobs they're being given they should quit right now because there are thousands of marines who would love the chance for such a prestigious assignment.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 03:10
|
|
|
ZDar Fan posted:An acquaintance in the military posted this: All I see here is two marines that are probably better soldiers than your friend. I mean I'm not in the military, but I have to assume you have to be drat good at your job before you're allowed to serve directly next to not only your own commander in chief, but the heads of state of other nations. Thank god Obama is the first president to have people hold umbrellas for him though, otherwise the whole premise of the post would be silly.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 03:48
|
|
|
Not strictly political, but this racist garbage just showed up on my timeline: Dude posts a lot of Chemtrails type poo poo too. He seemed like such a nice guy in person... 
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 04:00
|
|
|
Okay this benghazi bullshit is annoying me to no end. My dad is now among those who insist that the issue is "someone changing the talking point" and feels that it's important to find out who. So what exactly was the (bullshit?) source that a talking points memo was changed in the first place?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 04:09
|
|
|
The talking points were watered down but the basic story didn't change. Everyone thought it was a spontaneous attack related to all the protests about the video. State was worried about getting blamed for an attack on a CIA black site. They removed references to al Qaeda as to not tip off the attackers and prejudice the investigation. Instead they called them extremists.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 04:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 08:25 |
|
|
 What are we up to, like 200 repeal votes now? In other news, I suck at gimp
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 04:40
|
|
