|
archangelwar posted:Actually, this is slightly wrong. Cognitive dissonance is the uncomfortable feeling he should have when arguing in such an inherently contradictory way. The fact that he does not feel this implies he has a mental disability of some sort. You're right, that's true.
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 20:52 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Cognitive dissonance is : When you dismiss my arguments because I must be disingenuous. Cognitive dissonance is when you hold two conflicting beliefs and that conflict causes dissonant thinking when you try, and fail, to reconcile the two, you loving moron. E:F,B
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
[quote="JeffersonClay" post=""445877"] The city sends around dudes in polo shirts on bikes to hassle the homeless if they set up outside of skid row, so you really rarely see that kind of incongruous scene. Also skid row produces a red aura which lowers property values in the immediate vicinity so you can find decent rents if you don’t mind people pooping in your doorway. [/quote] That pic was a few doors away from a mission. I doubt you live there. We both know that even a few blocks away us gentrified as gently caress so please don't wander over to skid row and tell people they want lower wages. quote:Piketty didn’t say anything about implementation time. You mare that up. That's actually my point. His quote says nothing about graduated implementation, you're just taking a quote and making an arumen from authority out of context.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:arumen I like to think that aruminating is the opposite of ruminating, and yes that is what he has been doing
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:That's actually my point. His quote says nothing about graduated implementation, you're just taking a quote and making an arumen from authority out of context. If it wasn't explicitly stated the truth is whatever you want to believe the intent was, or at least whatever helps your argument sound best.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
is that middle class swede who wishes he was a poor inner city minority still posting itt
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:What if a minimum wage that is also a living wage is above the minimum wage which maximizes benefits to the poor? Can you even define how you would calculate that the benefit to the poor is maximized? Start at making all wages livable and then sort out the rest.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Cognitive dissonance is when you hold two conflicting beliefs and that conflict causes dissonant thinking when you try, and fail, to reconcile the two, you loving moron. Recognizing that a policy has positive and negative outcomes should not produce cognitive dissonance in a reasonably intelligent person, and those asserting that it should are saying a lot more about their own mental faculties than mine. However, a person who supports the minimum wage due to an ideological support for the poor, when confronted by an argument that the minimum wage actually harms some of the poor, would be expected to experience cognitive dissonance and therefore could be motivated to dismiss said argument as disingenuous or concern trolling. QuarkJets posted:
And yet you and others have asserted I was a disingenuous concern troll far before I made that statement. And the implementation time has no bearing on the actual wage which maximizes benefits to the poor. archangelwar posted:What if it is below? What if it is exactly right? Then nobody cares. But if the welfare maximizing minimum wage is less than a living wage, increasing the minimum wage to a living wage would necessarily cause harm to the poor overall. If you think that situation cannot exist, or you don't care, then your position is indistinguishable from "the minimum wage can increase without bound"
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Then nobody cares. But if the welfare maximizing minimum wage is less than a living wage, increasing the minimum wage to a living wage would necessarily cause harm to the poor overall. If you think that situation cannot exist, or you don't care, then your position is indistinguishable from "the minimum wage can increase without bound" So then you are making assumptions, leaping to conclusions, being hasty pudding, etc etc etc. But there is something about the term "living wage" and how it relates to the utility of the poor... I can't really put my finger on it. Perhaps if I only knew the definition of words...
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:That pic was a few doors away from a mission. I doubt you live there. We both know that even a few blocks away us gentrified as gently caress so please don't wander over to skid row and tell people they want lower wages. I'm not saying they want lower wages, I'm saying they don't want price increases! Maybe wait until you're calm and your reading comprehension returns before replying? quote:That's actually my point. His quote says nothing about graduated implementation, you're just taking a quote and making an arumen from authority out of context. Argument from authority is actually a good argument when you're dealing with a complex technical subject. It's why the scientific consensus on climate change should be convincing. And the onus is on you to prove Piketty would change his statement based on a graduated implementation. His statement was unambiguous. archangelwar posted:So then you are making assumptions, leaping to conclusions, being hasty pudding, etc etc etc. You're still not getting it. Saying "just make the min wage a living wage" ignores all the potential problems which could (and must, at some level) outweigh the benefits. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 20:32 on May 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Recognizing that a policy has positive and negative outcomes should not produce cognitive dissonance in a reasonably intelligent person, and those asserting that it should are saying a lot more about their own mental faculties than mine. Saying "Minimum wage hurts the poorest, you guys, for realy-realsies no foolin'!" does not an argument make, so no cognitive dissonance is to be expected.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Saying "Minimum wage hurts the poorest, you guys, for realy-realsies no foolin'!" does not an argument make, so no cognitive dissonance is to be expected. "What cognitive dissonance, you never made an argument!" Is a perfect encapsulation of the cognitive dissonance reduction strategy "denial".
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Where? Who, specifically, is saying "It is absolutely vital that I higher someone, but I can't afford to pay them anything more than $6/hr! That extra 50 bucks a week paying $7.25/hr is just too much!" So where, exactly, would this growth in employment come from? What sector, what company? Give a real answer or admit that lowering the minimum wage wouldn't affect hiring. The economy is large. It's far more likely that some companies would hire in response to lower wages than literally none. Another great clue: US companies hire millions of workers at lower wages overseas. There is no question that if costs were equal companies would prefer local workers with fewer management headaches and lead time issues. And note that equal costs doesn't mean equal wages - outsoircing has serious cost overhead. One of the sources Jefferson posted was an argument that instead of showing up as unemployment minimum impacts longer term job growth. That makes tons of sense to me. The alternatives to local labor often arn't that quick to implement.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:"What cognitive dissonance, you never made an argument!" Is a perfect encapsulation of the cognitive dissonance reduction strategy "denial". Please just stop trying to outsmart people, you don't know the meaning of the words you're using.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:"What cognitive dissonance, you never made an argument!" Is a perfect encapsulation of the cognitive dissonance reduction strategy "denial". Haha, is it now? I forget, which "dissonance reduction strategy" comes next, anger or bargaining?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'm not saying they want lower wages, I'm saying they don't want price increases! Maybe wait until you're calm and your reading comprehension returns before replying? If they don't want a price increase surely a decrease would be even better, right? JeffersonClay posted:Argument from authority is actually a good argument No it's not, it never is. While you and I may feel comfortable accepting what an authority has to say in our day to day life, it is not at all and never is a valid argument in debate. If you want to argue the merits of what an authority is saying you need to make your case, you can't just point to credentials and say "I win" (though none of your authorities actually make your case for you, so that's the big flaw in your "he said I'm right" argument). JeffersonClay posted:You're still not getting it. Saying "just make the min wage a living wage" ignores all the potential problems which could (and must, at some level) outweigh the benefits. "It could" is also not a valid argument, you need to provide information that addresses and agrees with your assertion. Otherwise it's just "what if", that does not make your argument reasonable or worthy of discussion. There is nothing to argue against in a "what if", we can pretend all day but it does nothing to actually move the conversation forward productively. asdf32 posted:One of the sources Jefferson posted was an argument that instead of showing up as unemployment minimum impacts longer term job growth. That makes tons of sense to me. The alternatives to local labor often arn't that quick to implement. How much does it hurt job growth? and is it diminished job growth with increased unemployment? I'm pretty sure one of the many sources people have posted indicated the reason for that was that employees cycle less as they get paid more. But I'd really love to see more information on what the negative effects would be.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
In that Hamilton project report, author is saying that he is largely cautious at a $9.73 wage and if anything we could go beyond it to a full median wage (as suggested with the UK as an example). Why not start with $10 and then add 5% of median wage adjusted for inflation until there is an issue? Nevertheless, a median wages for 2015 are likely over $20 an hour, so $15 wage would be significantly under that and more so if you consider they will be phased in. If anything he is saying that a $9.73 minimum is absolutely certain isn't an issue, not than a $15 wage is actually counter-productive. Ultimately, it is unclear if 60-75% of median wage is actually an issue at all and looking at what he said about the UK, it probably isn't. As for price increases, the increases he is quoting are so small, talking it as a serious negative just isn't going to work. JeffersonClay posted:Are they serious enough to worry about? Yes. "Any degree" is ridiculous when you consider the benefits, it shouldn't be an issue because you are talking about such vast differences of effect. I mean at a certain point you have to be worried about any policy that effects prices period even in the slightest. In the end, it is emotional sleight of hand. So we are aware it will have a minimal effect on prices. Yet homeless people deserve better services, and if anything a living wage makes that more possible through revenue rather than less. The downside are far outweighed by the positives. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 22:04 on May 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'm not saying they want lower wages, I'm saying they don't want price increases! Maybe wait until you're calm and your reading comprehension returns before replying? Oh I'm aware what your argument is, it's just really far removed from reality and that's why I'm mocking it. But I am seriously mad irl so you got me there! And no, argument from authority doesn't become a good thing just because you like the authority. It needs to be backed up with evidence.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:is that middle class swede who wishes he was a poor inner city minority still posting itt Not only that but he's accusing Americans who live in LA that they have never been to a poor neighborhood which is pretty hilarious if you've ever been in LA
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Not only that but he's accusing Americans who live in LA that they have never been to a poor neighborhood which is pretty hilarious if you've ever been in LA Yeah especially considering how many working poor LA has and the deep class/race divisions are. If anything the recent news is one of the most hopeful things I have heard about LA in a while. LA really hosed itself when it killed the Red Car and they didn't build any rail for practically 30 years. That issue is never ever going to get fixed.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Yeah especially considering how many working poor LA has and the deep class/race divisions are. If anything the recent news is one of the most hopeful things I have heard about LA in a while. They built the Blue Line and then had to expand the platforms within 10 Years because they didn't plan for the amount of traffic. Because LA. The blue line basically travels through the poorest parts of LA.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 22:26
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:Because the only credible study I've seen on the minimum wage and disemployment suggests that 50% of the local full-time median wage is about as high as you can set the minimum before you start to see unemployment tick up. 50% of median happens to be in line with the OECD average. That puts the minimum wage at around $13.50 in cities like D.C. and San Francisco and $10.24 in LA. A $15 minimum wage in a place like Oxford, North Carolina will raise unemployment and, I'd imagine, have the effect of further consolidating local markets around large corporations like WalMart that can amortize the increased labor costs. How many mom-and-pop stores do you think are covered by the FLSA, given that it exempts businesses with sales of less than $500,000 annually? For that matter, the living wage varies much less than the median wage, and $15/hr isn't a living wage for anybody with children anywhere in the country, and is just barely a living wage for someone with an adult dependent in the poor parts of the country. In real terms, it's too low. Not surprising given that it hasn't been adjusted for inflation in the last twenty years.
|
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:They built the Blue Line and then had to expand the platforms within 10 Years because they didn't plan for the amount of traffic. Because LA. The blue line basically travels through the poorest parts of LA. Not to mention the Green line was basically a line to nowhere, it's western terminus stopped literally in sight of the airport. There has been some progress obviously here and there with every new line bu SoCal as a whole needs to spend billions upon billions to get to where it needs to be and it has all happened way too slowly compared to the amount of new construction that has happened and how over burned the grid and freeways are. It is just such a poorly designed sprawling train wreck of a city. There are things to like about it such as the food, the weather and the beach but it doesn't really work on a pretty basic level as a urban area. A living(ish) wage isn't going to fix it but it might assuage some of the pain. (Also I will say again, that Hamilton study didn't say 50% was the median was the maximum, but that it was a good starting place.)
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Please just stop trying to outsmart people, you don't know the meaning of the words you're using. There are posters in this thread who, if they told me I wasn't smart and didn't understand the words I was using, would cause me to pause and reflect. You are not one of those posters. Please, what words specifically am I misusing? Who What Now posted:Haha, is it now? I forget, which "dissonance reduction strategy" comes next, anger or bargaining? Elcondemn doesn't like it when I outsmart people so maybe you should stop posting for his sake. ElCondemn posted:No it's not, it never is. While you and I may feel comfortable accepting what an authority has to say in our day to day life, it is not at all and never is a valid argument in debate. If you want to argue the merits of what an authority is saying you need to make your case, you can't just point to credentials and say "I win" (though none of your authorities actually make your case for you, so that's the big flaw in your "he said I'm right" argument). No, you're wrong. Appeal to authority is not an inherently false argument or logical fallacy. quote:"It could" is also not a valid argument, you need to provide information that addresses and agrees with your assertion. Otherwise it's just "what if", that does not make your argument reasonable or worthy of discussion. There is nothing to argue against in a "what if", we can pretend all day but it does nothing to actually move the conversation forward productively. Ok so you apparently don't understand what constitutes an argument, either. If you think I'm making invalid arguments, quote them specifically.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:There are posters in this thread who, if they told me I wasn't smart and didn't understand the words I was using, would cause me to pause and reflect. You are not one of those posters. Please, what words specifically am I misusing? Cognitive dissonance quote:In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values. I think I have to explain where you made your mistake, just reading about it without seeing it might be a bit confusing for you. You say things like this (I just randomly picked from all your posts, you say this kind of thing a lot) JeffersonClay posted:I'm more concerned about the number of poor people who will benefit versus the number who will be harmed Then you sometimes say things like this (not often, but this is great for proving my point that you have no idea what cognitive dissonance is) JeffersonClay posted:So yeah, lets raise the minimum wage to 10 and then 11 and then 12 and see what happens. These are conflicting ideas, you say the problem is that raising the minimum wage may hurt the poor and chastise people for suggesting it, yet here you are saying "lets increase it and see what happens". You can't hold both beliefs rationally, you believe increasing the minimum wage is bad and also you want to increase it. When you make the argument to not raise the wage then backpedal saying you would like to raise the min-wage it should cause cognitive dissonance. Whatever it is you think cognitive dissonance is, it isn't. I guess that's the rub, you can't hold both beliefs without cognitive dissonance so you keep changing your position. JeffersonClay posted:No, you're wrong. Appeal to authority is not an inherently false argument or logical fallacy. I really don't want to get into why you're so incredibly wrong, so here's a wiki article that explains it better than I can. Maybe if you read at least the first few paragraphs you'll come to a better understanding of what constitutes a good argument. http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Argument_from_authority JeffersonClay posted:Ok so you apparently don't understand what constitutes an argument, either. If you think I'm making invalid arguments, quote them specifically. I have, but mostly other people are much quicker and can argue against your point of view just fine without me (not that they need my help). You seem to ignore what you don't like, for instance, you didn't address my first question to you. If your concern over inflation for the non-working poor were legitimate you would argue that deflation is the better for them. Instead the reality is that you just don't think increasing the minimum wage is good, it's a gut feeling for sure. You haven't provided proof that it would be worse than what we have today... but you already know that, since you already agreed with me "So yeah, lets raise the minimum wage to 10 and then 11 and then 12 and see what happens. "
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:There are posters in this thread who, if they told me I wasn't smart and didn't understand the words I was using, would cause me to pause and reflect. Oh please tell us the guy we had to teach fifth grade math to is one of them 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 00:47
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:is that middle class swede who wishes he was a poor inner city minority still posting itt say david neumark three times and click your heels together
|
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:In that Hamilton project report, author is saying that he is largely cautious at a $9.73 wage and if anything we could go beyond it to a full median wage (as suggested with the UK as an example). Why not start with $10 and then add 5% of median wage adjusted for inflation until there is an issue? Because there's a slim chance that prices may increase by increase by 0.01% so it's better to just do nothing JeffersonClay posted:No, you're wrong. Appeal to authority is not an inherently false argument or logical fallacy. Come on you've got to be pulling my leg, this can't be real
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
You did not acknowledge that it is possible that a minimum wage hike cause incredible amounts of harm to the poor, therefore you are wrong that a minimum wage will help the poor, therefore a minimum wage hike will crush the working class under its hateful boot. Impeccable logic. EDIT: Appeal to authority is an informal fallacy, not a formal logical fallacy, so they are, in an incredibly pedantic and irrelevant way, correct about something. Not something relevant, but something. Ghost of Reagan Past fucked around with this message at 03:10 on May 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 03:06
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:
Here let me help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:EDIT: Appeal to authority is an informal fallacy, not a formal logical fallacy, so they are, in an incredibly pedantic and irrelevant way, correct about something. Not something relevant, but something. Appeal to authority does not logically support a conclusion. Authority can lend weight to the idea that a conclusion might be worth investigating the original supporting material.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Appeal to authority does not logically support a conclusion. Authority can lend weight to the idea that a conclusion might be worth investigating the original supporting material. Is this really where the thread is going? The fact that a guy mapped the tongue wrong in 1923 says nothing about minimum wage. Reminder that this is the thread that loved mainstream economic authority until now. This is an embarrassment.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Is this really where the thread is going? The fact that a guy mapped the tongue wrong in 1923 says nothing about minimum wage. You are right, how dare I define appeal to authority! What nerve! Next I will demand that other words and phrase have definitions too! This will not stand!
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:This is an embarrassment.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Is this really where the thread is going? The fact that a guy mapped the tongue wrong in 1923 says nothing about minimum wage. A love that was born of strong evidence-backed conclusions, not a cudgel used to strike down reason like is being done by JeffersonClay, you insufferable moron QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 04:28 on May 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
Factually correct statements are an embarrassment! - asdf32
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:A love that was born of strong evidence-backed conclusions, not treated a cudgel used to strike down reason like is being done by JeffersonClay, you insufferable moron For things which weren't $15 minimum wage or reasonably close too it from people who repeatedly wondered why a business might consider reducing employment if wages increased and are now trying to undermine authority in general while backing off the $15 number and saying "I was good with 11 all along".
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:For things which weren't $15 minimum wage or reasonably close too it from people who repeatedly wondered why a business might consider reducing employment if wages increased and are now trying to undermine authority in general while backing off the $15 number and saying "I was good with 11 all along". My intention was never to "undermine authority" (though I don't particularly see anything wrong with that), I was just trying to tell him the reason we believe in climate change isn't because a guy in a lab coat told us it's real. (hint: it's because the data supports it) Also, who's backing off $15? I want it in full effect tomorrow, but I understand doing it the way Seattle has decided to.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
Who is backing off the $15 number? There is no evidence that $15 is the point at which bad effects outweigh the good, that's your gut feeling based on the same reasoning that incorrectly predicted the same for every minimum wage increase ever. People are saying we should increment the minimum wage and study the results. When we start to see those bad effects approach the point of transferring more wealth away from the poor than the wage gives to the poor, we can stop and peg it to inflation thereafter. I would not be surprised if that number is above $15, but I recognize that's a gut feeling too which is why we should get the data. But no one wants to argue against this reasonable approach, they want to set up strawmen like "you must believe there's no upper bound to the minimum wage" to knock down. Oh and I guess I have to say this in every post: for the record I am very skeptical of the wisdom of a $1500 minimum hourly wage and we should not implement that tomorrow. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 05:09 on May 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 05:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 20:52 |
|
|
ElCondemn posted:My intention was never to "undermine authority" (though I don't particularly see anything wrong with that), I was just trying to tell him the reason we believe in climate change isn't because a guy in a lab coat told us it's real. (hint: it's because the data supports it) For me it's entirely because people in lab coats support it. I havn't looked at the data and wouldn't know what to do with it if I did. As an aside the modern world needs to rebalance it's relationship with authority. "Question authority" doesn't mean healthy scheptisism for many people, it means disregard anything you don't like from climate science to economics.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 05:08
|
|