JeffersonClay posted:A challenge for the economics-challenged out there. Name one thing that's inaccurate about the graph. You can't, probably because you don't understand it. dude you're going to make me cry, stop
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 05:25 |
|
|
down with slavery posted:dude you're going to make me cry, stop So far the "economics lolz" crew is 0/1.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:A challenge for the economics-challenged out there. Name one thing that's inaccurate about the graph. It has neither units nor scale, it is literally incapable of being accurate in any way. Edit quote:Labeling the axes with specific units would make it less useful. Haha, holy poo poo I'm dying. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 02:40 on Jun 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:It has neither units nor scale, it is literally incapable of being accurate in any way. Sure but that means you can't *prove* it wrong either, checkmate. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 02:40
|
|
|
That graph is just a restatement of your previous argument "well what about a $100/hr minimum wage, riddle me that liberals" and says nothing at all about the claim that you are actually making: that $15/hr hurts the poor overall.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:A challenge for the economics-challenged out there. Name one thing that's inaccurate about the graph. You can't, probably because you don't understand it. If that's too hard, you can post what wage you think is represented by the green and red lines. There's nothing innaccurate about that graph because it's not falsifiable because it's an argument and not a graph....it has no data. Which is why I called you Laffer. If that went over your head, maybe you shouldn't be condescending about economics knowledge? Here's a hint: Everyone here understood exactly what you were saying, but the post was still dumb.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 02:57
|
|
|
Is JeffersonClay suggesting that the minimum wage should in fact not be $15 billion a second? That's some shocking level headed common sense right there, America needs more of it imo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:Is JeffersonClay suggesting that the minimum wage should in fact not be $15 billion a second? That's some shocking level headed common sense right there, America needs more of it imo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
if we raised the minwage to $15bil/s then poor people would be even poorer. It's science.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 03:12
|
|
|
how do you guys know 15/bil a second wasnt to the left of the optimal point on his graph
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 03:17
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:how do you guys know 15/bil a second wasnt to the left of the optimal point on his graph well if you look at the underlying data you'll see
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:It has neither units nor scale, it is literally incapable of being accurate in any way. The shape of that curve will hold true for every labor market. It's totally accurate. 0/2 Zeitgueist posted:There's nothing innaccurate about that graph because it's not falsifiable because it's an argument and not a graph....it has no data. Which is why I called you Laffer. Considering I was using the graph to demonstrate visually a point that another poster did not understand, I don't think you're right. 0/3 You could falsify it by arguing it's the wrong shape. That you cannot implies that it was correct. VitalSigns posted:That graph is just a restatement of your previous argument "well what about a $100/hr minimum wage, riddle me that liberals" and says nothing at all about the claim that you are actually making: that $15/hr hurts the poor overall. It wasn't intended to offer any sort of argument about where the maximum and zero point are. Indeed, these points are different for each labor market. That's why there are no units! It was also intended to show that a living wage is irrelevant to the benefits maximizing point on that graph -- an argument you still seem incapable of grasping. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 03:24 on Jun 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The shape of that curve will hold true for every labor market. It's totally accurate. Prove it. quote:Considering I was using the graph to demonstrate visually a point that another poster did not understand, I don't think you're right. 0/3 You're not exactly working above anyones level here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Prove it. OK. The curve must start at 0,0 because there can't be any benefit to the poor from no minimum wage. The curve must eventually pass below zero because "everyone agrees" (except the poster I was trying to illuminate) there is some point where the minimum wage is too high and the impact will be net negative. There must exist some maximum in-between these two points where the minimum wage provides the most benefit. If you think the graph could be discontinuous or that there could be multiple maxima you'd need an argument as to why. What else could it possibly look like?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Economic impact. i will destroy your feeble arguments with my sword of logic, should you be foolish enough to stand against me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 03:31
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:If you think the graph could be discontinuous or that there could be multiple maxima you'd need an argument as to why. so you need no argument as to why your drop off is steeper than the come up? or you know, for anything that graph says other than literally "making the minimum wage infinity would be bad"
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
So the ideal minimum wage lies between zero and infinity dollars? I believe it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
"what if wages, but too much" -JeffersonClay
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:so you need no argument as to why your drop off is steeper than the come up? or you know, for anything that graph says other than literally "making the minimum wage infinity would be bad" Is that the extent of your quibble? 1) Making the drop off less-steep would actually imply the wage which maximizes benefits would be lower so I don't really understand this critisism. 2) The graph also demonstrates that there is no connection between a living wage and a benefit-maximizing wage. 3) The graph also demonstrates that there levels of minimum wage where overall benefits are positive but not maximized, and thus where the poor would actually benefit from lowering the minimum wage. 0/4 keep trying guys!
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
I am dying, send halp 0/4 Edit: goddamn it 0/5
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
JeffersonClay why would you have the audacity to post a graphic which I cannot identify a single problem with hahahah lolz mspaint
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:So if you're in a union, $12 an hour is a livable wage? If not, then why should Unions be exempt? because union negotiated a $0 deductible health plan for $12/hr.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The shape of that curve will hold true for every labor market. It's totally accurate. A compelling arguments but consider this; nuh-uh! JeffersonClay posted:Considering I was using the graph to demonstrate visually a point that another poster did not understand, I don't think you're right. 0/3 A graph's sole purpose is to visually represent numbers. As you somehow forgot to include any numbers what you made isn't a graph, it's a drawing, and it's going right up on the fridge.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Is that the extent of your quibble? Your graph means gently caress all sans data. Its great that is represents concepts, it really is, but unless you have data that backs up the shape of your graph, representing a concept is all it does. You cannot then make an assertion that the shape of the graph holds true for all labor markets. That is why people are chewing you out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 03:46
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:JeffersonClay why would you have the audacity to post a graphic which I cannot identify a single problem with hahahah lolz mspaint Not actually being a graph seems to be a pretty huge issue to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 03:46
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:A graph's sole purpose is to visually represent numbers. As you somehow forgot to include any numbers what you made isn't a graph, it's a drawing, and it's going right up on the fridge. A graph's sole purpose is to visually represent the relationship between two (or more) variables. You can make graphs without numbers which still communicate the relationship. http://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/microeconomics-principles-v2.0/s24-02-nonlinear-relationships-and-gr.html Sinnlos posted:Your graph means gently caress all sans data. Its great that is represents concepts, it really is, but unless you have data that backs up the shape of your graph, representing a concept is all it does. You cannot then make an assertion that the shape of the graph holds true for all labor markets. That is why people are chewing you out. No, you're wrong. Representing a concept is all I was attempting to do. If anyone can suggest a plausible shape that is distinct from the one I sketched, feel free (you can't). JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 03:55 on Jun 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 03:53
|
|
|
0/7
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
i'm just embarassed for all of you. how ignorant 0/8
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
I'm more annoyed that your pointless thread making GBS threads has, once again, delayed actual discussion about the minimum wage but lovely posters gonna poo poo, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 04:02
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'm more annoyed that your pointless thread making GBS threads has, once again, delayed actual discussion about the minimum wage but lovely posters gonna poo poo, I guess. 0/9
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 04:07
|
|
|
All these people are saying my posts are bad, but what if... what if their posts are bad? *furiously begins sketching graph*
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 04:08
|
|
I think the best part of this is where he assumed that the living wage just floats around, like the fairies from Zelda or something. Now we're 0/10 
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
this is my posting itt *slide whistle noise ascending* and this is your posting itt *slide whistle noise descending* let's hear that again my posts *noise sounds happy* your posts *noise sounds sad* i hope i don't have to dumb this down for you even more, but, hell, let's face it, i probably will
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 04:12
|
|
|
Popping in. What's going on here? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Shitposting rabidly is one thing but framing yourself as some freewheeling rich guy just ups the mom's basement quotia to toxic levels.  Popular Thug Drink posted:i hope i don't have to dumb this down for you even more, but, hell, let's face it, i probably will
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:No, you're wrong. Representing a concept is all I was attempting to do. OK, now show your concept works, with data. We'll wait. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:Popping in. What's going on here? 0/11
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
Whatre we xounting ? Numbers confuse me, could you draw a conceptual graph?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
holy poo poo... the post history burn, it's too hot! my eyes are melting!!
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 05:25 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:A graph's sole purpose is to visually represent the relationship between two (or more) variables. You can make graphs without numbers which still communicate the relationship. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 04:20
|
|