|
Thank you and good luck Series DD.asdf32 posted:The trick you used that you don't understand yourself is that you went from everyone being at minimum wage to a few people being on minimum wage. Your'e correct that this makes the impact lower. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 11:01 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No. I plotted your distribution. It looks like the initial wages were all from $7 to $15. In that case, once the minimum wage goes above $15 new people stop getting added and the increase becomes linear.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
You know what would be terrible Making a living wage
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:You know what would be terrible It would increase prices to intolerable levels.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:You know what would be terrible Oh my god I had no idea you were dickeye until I clicked your rap sheet Also I disagree I think it would be good.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:It looks like the initial wages were all from $7 to $15. In that case, once the minimum wage goes above $15 new people stop getting added and the increase becomes linear. Yes they were. I can add more wage earners if you like, but that will only make the curve lag a linear relationship more (because the average starting wage will be higher, so the baseline total costs would be higher, so smaller increases would have even less effect). This should be obvious. The higher the average wage is in the economy, the smaller the proportional change in labor costs from raising the minimum would be.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
LorrdErnie posted:Oh my god I had no idea you were dickeye until I clicked your rap sheet You are literally the last person to realize who I am, I think euphronius posted:It would increase prices to intolerable levels. I agree prices are extremely tolerable now for people making minimum wage.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
Why do you care about the absolute number in terms of dollars. A $100,000 increase is significant if I'm currently paying $100,000 in labor costs, I might have to increase prices a lot to stay in business. But if my labor costs are $100,000,000 then that increase is insignificant and even if I pass on the full cost, it will be a fraction of a percent.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Why do you care about the absolute number in terms of dollars. I'm really not sure why you're feeling like it might work with big numbers when it didn't work with little ones. Maybe he hasn't gotten to percentages yet and that's the problem.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
The increase to $15 should be retroactive. 
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
Bob James posted:The increase to $15 should be retroactive. Bob James posted:The increase to $15 should be retroactive. To 1640
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yes they were. I can add more wage earners if you like, but that will only make the curve lag a linear relationship more (because the average starting wage will be higher, so the baseline total costs would be higher, so smaller increases would have even less effect). No. Here is the formula:  On the bottom is the employer's initial costs, which are evenly distributed from $7.25 to $50. On the top is the cost increase given x, where x is the fractional increase in the minwage. y is the fractional increase in costs. w is the initial wage. Wolfram Alpha gives the following solution: y = 0.000817181 (3.55271×10^-15-5.25625×10^-8 x+26.2813 x^2)
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
Pencils down. Please turn in your math tests.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:No. Here is the formula: Please work on the aesthetics of your formulas.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
I mean yeah when you look at the math and the formulas and the economics the minimum wage doesn't look so hot but the important thing is how it makes you feel, deep down in your gut.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yes they were. I can add more wage earners if you like, but that will only make the curve lag a linear relationship more (because the average starting wage will be higher, so the baseline total costs would be higher, so smaller increases would have even less effect). Yes because you constructed a scenario where effectively everyone was at minimum wage and compared it to a situation where a smaller number of people were initially at minimum wage. You then pointed out that an increase has a larger impact to the former than the latter (obvious). Then you tried to say this indicates that it's not exponential (wrong). Among other things you don't seem to understand: for any particular range of X's an exponential relationship can lag a linear one. That doesn't mean anything and the latter example (exponential) is a better model of real life. EDIT Graph:  VitalSigns posted:Why do you care about the absolute number in terms of dollars. Because I care whether the body of research we have (small increases) matches the scenario at hand (large increase) and in terms of overall economic impact on things like inflation or unemployment total dollars helps tell me that. asdf32 fucked around with this message at 04:52 on May 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:there is no escape from The Resort. What about their kids? And do children of a resort resident and a non-resort resident stay on the resort or get shuffled to genpop? I'd like to make this work, I've already set up the wiki.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 04:45
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I mean yeah when you look at the math and the formulas and the economics the minimum wage doesn't look so hot but the important thing is how it makes you feel, deep down in your gut. This but ironically. asdf32 posted:Yes because you constructed a scenario where effectively everyone was at minimum wage and compared it to a situation where a smaller number of people were initially at minimum wage. You then pointed out that an increase has a larger impact to the former than the latter (obvious). Then you tried to say this indicates that it's not exponential (wrong). asdf32 posted:Because I care whether the body of research we have (small increases) matches the scenario at hand (large increase) and in terms of overall economic impact on things like inflation or unemployment total dollars helps tell me that.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 04:54
|
|
|
LorrdErnie posted:This but ironically. 
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Yes because you constructed a scenario where effectively everyone was at minimum wage and compared it to a situation where a smaller number of people were initially at minimum wage. You then pointed out that an increase has a larger impact to the former than the latter (obvious). Then you tried to say this indicates that it's not exponential (wrong). No. No the total labor costs can never increase by a factor larger than the wage increase. There will never be a situation in which doubling wages quadruples total labor costs. This is literally impossible, because total labor costs are the sum of all wages. If you extend out the graph I made, none of the lines will ever intersect.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 04:59
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:No. Here is the formula: This answer can't be true. As x grows large, the square term will dominate. This would mean that at some point doubling the wage again would quadruple total labor costs, but this can't happen because total labor costs is just the sum of all wages. Is this the result of a Taylor series approximation around x=0? E: I have to go to work, I'll read your answer tonight
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
asdf missing the key memo that trolling isn't really an accomplishment if you expend more effort and make more posts than the people you're trying to agitate and are mostly just serving to make yourself look legitimately handicapped rather than cause anger.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 05:06
|
|
|
Wait do you really think you were the first one being ironic and my main concern with that formula was really its aesthetics? I mean it's an ugly loving formula but come on...
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 05:07
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIniljT5lJI
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
LorrdErnie posted:This but ironically. Yes, with excellent test scores. Though I hate math for the reasons perfectly illustrated by this thread. VitalSigns posted:This answer can't be true. As x grows large, the square term will dominate. It stops being exponential at 50 because at that point the entire population is on minimum wage (in this example) In real life in the range $7->$15 exponential is a good model.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 05:10
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Yes, with excellent test scores. Though I hate math for the reasons perfectly illustrated by this thread. This is very true, but not for the reason you think it is. quote:In real life in the range $7->$15 exponential is a good model. Again maybe slightly true if you are interested in modeling only the least useful aspect of the data.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 05:14
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:It stops being exponential at 50 because at that point the entire population is on minimum wage (in this example) You mean polynomial. No, it's not. It's a poor model for that reason. Close to x=0 you can approximate it by a higher order polynomial like a Taylor series, but the farther you move away from zero, the less accurate this becomes. And some of those coefficients will be negative, as the first-order term in Series DD Funding's formula is, which is how even in the range in which it is accurate, the final result will still always lag what a linear relationship would be. Remember, in a quadratic equation when x < 1, the linear term dominates. Only when x gets large does the quadratic term become more important, but when x gets large a formula approximating the shape near x=0 is no longer useful. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 05:23 on May 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 05:18
|
|
|
asdf will answer questions about his math education but not a simple yes/no on his carnal relations with a watermelon smh.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You mean polynomial. No we're not talking about a curve fit using a polynomial were just talking about the real life numbers. Assuming, as Series DD did, that workers impacted increases linearly with wage (crude but decent model here) then we're integrating a straight line (form AX+B) which has an answer with an x^2 term. This is basic calculus.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Yep I want to see that. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1692395 The basic shape is not really country specific, there's been a lot of work into it lately. Now the inflection points, those are pretty variable. Here's prasch's visualization of the curve: 
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 05:30
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:This is assic fuckulus. I agree.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 05:30
|
|
|
-
QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 06:27 on May 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 06:22
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:
Nope, that quantity does not grow exponentially as a function of minimum wage. Using actual data from the bureau of labor statistics from 2005, here's what that shape looks like with best-fit quadratic and exponential curves:  Would you like to change your answer?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 06:53
|
|
|
moller posted:What about their kids? And do children of a resort resident and a non-resort resident stay on the resort or get shuffled to genpop? I'd like to make this work, I've already set up the wiki. We're running a retirement resort, not a baby factory. If someone wants to make new kids, They Must Choose. The wealth of your past, or the hope of your future? Only you can make the decision. Leave behind all you believe you are entitled to and be allowed a new start in genpop, or stay in this purgatory. This goes for the kids as well, which is great for giving me the protagonist of my YA novel about it. It's a metaphor for realizing the need to give up the superficially alluring but ultimately unsatisfying petty comforts of your youth in order to mature into a self-actualized adult in this big wide world
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 08:10
|
|
|
yo but for real why does the squarehead care so freaking much about American minwage. youd think we're gonna patch up revenue shortfall by coming over there and confiscating his disgusting fermented fish products
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 08:47
|
|
|
LorrdErnie posted:more stuff Yes lol, if you go ahead and redefine everyone as poor, then the minimum wage works. Households with incomes from $60k-$100k, i.e. the global 0.5%, are now poor by your definition. So the fact that the minimum wage helps them almost as much as it does the bottom 20% is all of a sudden ok because everyone is so poor. By your same logic: Tax cuts for the rich are a policy that help the poor, because the rich are actually poor! What's the point in focusing on the bottom 20% of the income distribution with all these anti-poverty policies anyway? Don't people know that families making $60k-$100k are just as needy as them? GlyphGryph posted:http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1692395 So let's see, Journal of Political Economy article by a Stanford professor: MY GOD, THIS ARTICLE IS ALL WRONG. I DON'T KNOW HOW; BUT IT IS Metroeconomica article with no empirics at all: Yeah, there's a lot of empirical evidence for this *adds pic from Unlearning Economics, the economics equivalent of a global warming denier blog* The 19% of minimum wage workers coming from households with incomes $60k-$100k and the 14% coming from households with income above $100k probably are close the subsistence frontier, yes. Geriatric Pirate fucked around with this message at 09:23 on May 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 09:11
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:The dollar amount of additional wages, or better, that quantity represented as a percentage of the overall economy. The thing I've said multiple times. Weren't you arguing it was linear at first?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 09:24
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:No we're not talking about a curve fit using a polynomial were just talking about the real life numbers. Assuming, as Series DD did, that workers impacted increases linearly with wage (crude but decent model here) then we're integrating a straight line (form AX+B) which has an answer with an x^2 term. This is basic calculus. Nah, total labor costs as a function of minimum wage can't have an x^2 term, because as x gets large, x^2 dwarfs everything else and the function just looks like x^2. But we know that the total labor cost is a linear function of wage as x gets large because the total labor costs is just the arithmetic sum of all wages. Double all wages, double their sum. 2(a+b)=2a+2b. You will never have a situation wherein you double all wages and total wages somehow quadruple. What you mean to say is: you can select a wage distribution such that total wages can be approximated by a quadratic polynomial provided x is small. But there's no sense in freaking out about polynomial growth when x is small, because that's when their growth is slow. Explosive polynomial growth happens when x is large, but at that point a quadratic is no longer an accurate approximation anymore. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 11:02 on May 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 10:20
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Weren't you arguing it was linear at first? Nope, I only stated that the curve was definitely not exponential (because it loving obviously isn't). I think Vital Signs at one point suggested a linear relationship for a completely different quantity, but that was before asdf32 was explicit in defining what he thought was exponential
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 10:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 11:01 |
|
|
asdf32 posted:No we're not talking about a curve fit using a polynomial were just talking about the real life numbers. Assuming, as Series DD did, that workers impacted increases linearly with wage (crude but decent model here) then we're integrating a straight line (form AX+B) which has an answer with an x^2 term. This is basic calculus. The part that you're loving up is basic algebra vocabulary y = x^2 is not an exponential function
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 10:34
|
|