|
wateroverfire posted:Businesses are funcitoning just fine with their current wage structure and their employees manifestly are able to make it work, with varying degrees of comfort, on what they earn. Why is your arbitrary compensation standard the thing that should decide whether that arrangement's acceptable? Define "make it work"? Is a homeless person who can only feed their kids once a day really "making it work"? At what level of income do we look at a person and decide that they're not "making it work" sufficiently? In what ways are they making it work? Do you see a person eating out of a trash can as "making it work" and think to yourself "clearly that person is making enough money"? JeffersonClay posted:If you don't think the graph shows exactly what the paragraph states, or it takes you a lot longer to glean information from the graph than the paragraph, maybe you are just bad at graphs. It's actually you who are bad at graphs, the reasons why have been beaten to death
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 06:40 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I'm not sure that people would give me absolute control of all world economies because I ask them nicely. Ah see you're going about it from the top down. That's all wrong. Never work. All you have to do is outcompete the dinosaurs you're criticizing. Which should be easy because they're so inefficient that you can spot it from a forum post.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 18:24
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:If you don't think the graph shows exactly what the paragraph states, or it takes you a lot longer to glean information from the graph than the paragraph, maybe you are just bad at graphs. lol you're still defending your stupid graph
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Define "make it work"? Is a homeless person who can only feed their kids once a day really "making it work"? Do all of that stuff but in the context of defining a living wage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Ah see you're going about it from the top down. That's all wrong. Never work. All you have to do is outcompete the dinosaurs you're criticizing. Which should be easy because they're so inefficient that you can spot it from a forum post. Ah yes, destroy free market capitalism by... being a free market capitalist. That will work.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Link his backpage ad and I may consider it. He's not for sale right now, but he might do ya for free if you're his type. Next time you're in TX I'll pm you his a4a username.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:If they're dinosaurs and "it" can be done so much more efficiently then why not go out and do it? You can take your administrator's wage and your model of "it" will spread throughout the market supplanting the bad old inefficient ways. Perhaps this person is doing something more important with their life than creating new enterprises to compete with barely-successful businesses? Or maybe they don't even have access to the kind of capital required to go out and start a new business tomorrow. You speak like someone who knows nothing about starting or running a business.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
If slavery is as bad as you say, why haven't you started your own plantation and outcompeted the slaveowners on the free market of money and ideas?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Do all of that stuff but in the context of defining a living wage. Then you agree that anyone who makes less than a living wage is not "making it work"? I would define a living wage as one where a single person supporting 2 kids could keep a roof over their head, food on the table, and any other necessities that the family may need (like medical care). There's been a lot of research on defining a living wage, you could go over to MIT and ask them. It's actually not that difficult to figure out, we can clearly define a living wage based on the available data. "Making it work", on the other hand, is such a vague term that you really need to spell out what you mean. QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 18:45 on Jun 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Do all of that stuff but in the context of defining a living wage. 1. "making it work", in the context of a living wage, would be having enough money to feed, clothe and provide preventative and emergency care to yourself and your family without additional assistance. 2. "not making it work", in the context of a living wage, would be the point at which despite working you cannot feed, clothe and provide preventative and emergency care to yourself and a family without requiring additional assistance. The goal is to reduce the number of working people who need additional assistance. A living wage is whatever reduces the amount of working people seeking assistance to zero, near zero or to a level that's no longer affected by increases in the minimum wage. Work is historically the most widespread method of sustaining yourself and your family, the fact that it can't do that (at least it's being argued it's not possible) in modern society is a problem. ElCondemn fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Jun 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:If you don't think the graph shows exactly what the paragraph states, or it takes you a lot longer to glean information from the graph than the paragraph, maybe you are just bad at graphs. Your graphs can never fail, only be failed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:The fact that multiple people have told you that it doesn't isn't a coincidence. I know that coming to accept that you maybe, might have, messed up is hard. But admitting that is the first step in people taking you seriously. The same people telling me the graph is stupid are the ones suggesting the economy runs on magic and fairy dust and the government can make the economy do whatever it wants so perhaps there's some motivation behind that posting other than a pure desire for truth. ElCondemn posted:Is it at all possible that you may be bad at graphs? Like, think for a second, if nobody knows what you're trying to say and it's not clear until you use words... does that really mean everyone else is stupid? I think it probably indicates they are unfamiliar with how economics is taught. Zeitgeist said "graphs like that are an econ 101 shibboleth". That's only a criticism if you think there's something wrong with basic economic knowledge. QuarkJets posted:It's actually you who are bad at graphs, the reasons why have been beaten to death QuarkJets posted:Personally I think that the "graph" works fine as an illustration of the broad idea that JeffersonClay wants to present: at some sufficiently large minimum wage any potential downsides might begin to outweigh the potential downsides. Hmm...
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 18:53
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The same people telling me the graph is stupid are the ones suggesting the economy runs on magic and fairy dust and the government can make the economy do whatever it wants so you make bad graphs and your reading comprehension is bad, when will the horrors end?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Graphs can be used to express the relationship between two or more things. That is often, but not always, in the form of numerical data. I'm sorry, but you've got it backwards. Graphs are ways to visualize data. The data either has to be there, or be generated by a model. quote:The graph is this paragraph in visual form. That's not data, though. Again, you're expressing a model. Data is something you would actually be measuring. You can't measure "The minimum wage has positive and negative effects. At low minimum wage levels, the positive effects are dominant and increasing. As the minimum wage grows, it reaches a point where (positive effects) - (negative effects) is at a maximum. Beyond that point the negative effects begin growing faster than positive effects, and at a sufficiently high level of minimum wage, the negative effects begin to dominate. " That's a model. You could then run data, say, the relevant economic measures in a certain economy, and then you'd get the point where (pos)-(neg) is maximum. Or you wouldn't get just one: it might just oscillate oscillate. And then it would show that your model is wrong, or of limited applicability. In no way is that paragraph data, other than if we were investigating you as a subject, that is, it would be qualitative data about your opinion about this subject. But this is not data about the economy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:There should be. There's no reason to allow a business to hire someone for less than a living wage. It's unethical. Graph chat led directly to you making this statement, which I have subsequently demolished.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The same people telling me the graph is stupid are the ones suggesting the economy runs on magic and fairy dust and the government can make the economy do whatever it wants so perhaps there's some motivation behind that posting other than a pure desire for truth. You're trying to redirect from the fact your graph is poorly done. You also tried to explain it as ALL DATA ISN'T NUMBERS... with a graph explicitly built on numbers. Your actual data -- and "your" is being generous -- is the $ amount for min wage as it correlates to some proxy value for "benefit." Graphs are a way to convey information about that data. Because we don't actually know what the data is we can't really draw any inferences from your really poorly drawn MS Paint graph. You should use a graph to convey to us what that drop off looks like (if there is one.) This is seemingly really hard for you to grasp, but it was a lovely graph. I am not even talking about what ever you're trying to say with it. I am just saying it's lovely graph that doesn't do what you think it does and you should stop defending it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 19:06
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Graph chat led directly to you making this statement, which I have subsequently demolished. any other delusions you'd care to share with the class? btw there's still no reason to allow a business to hire someone for less than a living wage, also it's still unethical, hth
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The same people telling me the graph is stupid are the ones suggesting the economy runs on magic and fairy dust and the government can make the economy do whatever it wants so perhaps there's some motivation behind that posting other than a pure desire for truth. The government/federal reserve literally does control the economy. One big thing that's been said several times in this thread, "increasing the minimum wage increases prices of goods". This might be true, but the effect does not appear to be more severe or detrimental than normal inflation, but even if we have significant inflation it's not automatically a negative thing. The reality is that inflation is monitored and controlled and even encouraged in our economy. Run away inflation is what we're trying to avoid, but if an increase to the minimum wage causes inflation but immediately levels out it's no worse than if we had not changed a thing (unless we don't adjust wages, etc. in accordance like we've been neglecting to do for decades). JeffersonClay posted:I think it probably indicates they are unfamiliar with how economics is taught. Zeitgeist said "graphs like that are an econ 101 shibboleth". That's only a criticism if you think there's something wrong with basic economic knowledge. I believe his response was after you came back and "explained" your diagram. You can't claim it was totally clear and everyone got it when nobody did. Again, you seem to think because you understood it that means it did it's job well and everyone else is just stupid. I would argue the fact that nobody got it and even made fun of you for it is reason enough to conclude you did a poor job of representing what you were trying to say.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
As an Econ grad myself, I find it pretty adorable that someone is legitimately using the Laffer curve to talk about anything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:You're trying to redirect from the fact your graph is poorly done. You also tried to explain it as ALL DATA ISN'T NUMBERS... with a graph explicitly built on numbers. Your actual data -- and "your" is being generous -- is the $ amount for min wage as it correlates to some proxy value for "benefit." Graphs are a way to convey information about that data. Because we don't actually know what the data is we can't really draw any inferences from your really poorly drawn MS Paint graph. You should use a graph to convey to us what that drop off looks like (if there is one.) He came back and admitted that his diagram does not display data, he also admitted the curve, labels and points on the graph were also arbitrary and meaningless. So if you look at the diagram with the understanding that it means nothing and tells us nothing about reality it's clear that it's doing exactly what he intended it to do the whole time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Graph chat led directly to you making this statement, which I have subsequently demolished. The only thing you've done is establish that you're tone deaf to working class struggles. Labor rights have suffered in the USA because of people such as yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I'm sorry, but you've got it backwards. Graphs are ways to visualize data. The data either has to be there, or be generated by a model.  Is this a graph? It's not based on any data from any real business. It's not based on data generated by a model. quote:That's not data, though. Again, you're expressing a model. Data is something you would actually be measuring. You can't measure "The minimum wage has positive and negative effects. At low minimum wage levels, the positive effects are dominant and increasing. As the minimum wage grows, it reaches a point where (positive effects) - (negative effects) is at a maximum. Beyond that point the negative effects begin growing faster than positive effects, and at a sufficiently high level of minimum wage, the negative effects begin to dominate. " That's a model. What other word would you use to describe the information that informs a model? quote:In no way is that paragraph data, other than if we were investigating you as a subject, that is, it would be qualitative data about your opinion about this subject. But this is not data about the economy. No, that paragraph is a description of data. The graph is a depiction of data. Data is not limited to coordinate pairs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:He came back and admitted that his diagram does not display data, he also admitted the curve, labels and points on the graph were also arbitrary and meaningless. So if you look at the diagram with the understanding that it means nothing and tells us nothing about reality it's clear that it's doing exactly what he intended it to do the whole time. To be fair, the Laffer curve does look exactly like that in Econ 101 textbooks - a convex curve that is perfectly smooth, with revenue on the Y axis and tax on the X axis. That is, there's no basis in reality to it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 19:22
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:
lol you just can't stop can you? you should listen to that itching feeling in the back of your head going "maybe... it's me?" because it is do yourself a favor and back away from the keyboard for a few hours, maybe smoke a joint or something
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
OMFG he really posted a linear supply and demand graph assuming perfect elasticity and substitutability, holy poo poo
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:No, that paragraph is a description of data. The graph is a depiction of data. Data is not limited to coordinate pairs. For those still confused, the data in question is his idea that at some point if you increase the minimum wage enough there might be a point at which it hurts the poor more than it helps them. No argument to date has been made as to the veracity of that "data", but that's only because the future is wild and unpredictable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Hmm... Protip: even if a graph does convey a single concept well, it can still be a bad graph overall for myriad other reasons JeffersonClay posted:Graph chat led directly to you making this statement, which I have subsequently demolished. This is just sad
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 19:26
|
|
ElCondemn posted:For those still confused, the data in question is his idea that at some point if you increase the minimum wage enough there might be a point at which it hurts the poor more than it helps them. No argument to date has been made as to the veracity of that "data", but that's only because the future is wild and unpredictable. I'd like to know by what definition that's "data"?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:
Yes, it is. It's a way of visualizing the data generated by a toy model expressing a more complicated mechanism. It just so happens in these models it's a clear analytic functional dependency, so you don't have to bother with generating the data and then drawing it out, you can just cut out the middle-man, but it's still not in itself data. You're expressing a model. quote:What other word would you use to describe the information that informs a model? I would clearly delineate data from model, which you refuse to do, and it's making you look more and more ridiculous and frankly calls to question any social science credentials that you might have that you are refusing to make that distinction, instead opting to defend your original graph as itself data. It's not. It's just a way in which you're trying to visualize your model. quote:No, that paragraph is a description of data. The graph is a depiction of data. Data is not limited to coordinate pairs. No, it isn't. It's a description of yours, or say an accepted, model of the relations between parts of the data. You then need to present actual data that fits in within this model to argue for that model. But it's no more data than a Laffer Curve is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:I'd like to know by what definition that's "data"? I'm trying to help JC explain, but this is where I'm not so sure what he thinks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
Data is a collection of datums. Each datum has a one to one correlation with a irreducible truth unit observable in the world. Graphs are a depriction of datums and are thus pictures of reality
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:I'd like to know by what definition that's "data"? As I said, it would be data if we were collecting the opinions of people in this thread about their models about raising the minimum wage for another purpose.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:btw there's still no reason to allow a business to hire someone for less than a living wage, also it's still unethical, hth I will try and provide a microfoundational example here. John has Down syndrome. John needs a $20/hr wage to support himself. John is capable of producing $10/hr in value for an employer. It would be better for society to allow John to work at $10/hr and subsidize the rest of his existence than to try and force an employer to lose at least $10/hr by employing him, because this would likely result in John being unemployed. The higher you raise the minimum wage, the more people will be in exactly the same situation as John. Not all people are capable of producing more than is required to sustain them and that's OK. Having the government pass a law will not magically make John capable of producing as much as he needs to live. There's a good reason to allow John to be employed at $10/hr and making his job illegal would be unethical. Radbot posted:OMFG he really posted a linear supply and demand graph assuming perfect elasticity and substitutability, holy poo poo OMFG is it a graph or not? The content has nothing to do with what we're talking about.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
Radbot posted:To be fair, the Laffer curve does look exactly like that in Econ 101 textbooks - a convex curve that is perfectly smooth, with revenue on the Y axis and tax on the X axis. That is, there's no basis in reality to it. And thats why they dont call it the Serious curve. JeffersonClay posted:No, that paragraph is a description of data. The graph is a depiction of data. Data is not limited to coordinate pairs.  except Reagan had the courtesy to put some bullshit numbers on there Spaceman Future! fucked around with this message at 19:36 on Jun 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:John is capable of producing $10/hr in value for an employer. It doesnt work like this in the real world.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 19:34
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I will try and provide a microfoundational example here. John has Down syndrome. John needs a $20/hr wage to support himself. John is capable of producing $10/hr in value for an employer. It would be better for society to allow John to work at $10/hr and subsidize the rest of his existence than to try and force an employer to lose at least $10/hr by employing him, because this would likely result in John being unemployed. The higher you raise the minimum wage, the more people will be in exactly the same situation as John. Not all people are capable of producing more than is required to sustain them and that's OK. Having the government pass a law will not magically make John capable of producing as much as he needs to live. That's not a good reason to allow John to be employed at $10/hr, it's a good reason to not allow the disabled to continue to be exploited by allowing for minimum wage exemptions. If you want to incentivize the hiring of the disabled provide a government tax credit, don't just pay them less. There's no reason a disabled individual should make less than a living wage either. The entire point of a living wage is to ensure the populace can survive comfortably while employed. Why shouldn't John be able to survive comfortably? Because he has Downs? Pretty disgusting imo. Which surprise, leads me back to where we started. It's simply unethical to allow someone to hire an individual for less than a living wage. It's effectively wage slavery. down with slavery fucked around with this message at 19:36 on Jun 4, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:No, that paragraph is a description of data. The graph is a depiction of data. Graphs are used to illustrate those relationships in a visual manner. (Choosing Which Type of Graph to Convey Your Information, Lesson 1) Your data set is literally: Value of Min. Wage and its correlate to proxy for benefit (which is complied from a set of factors that whoever collected it from decided defined 'benefit'). Both of which are numerical values. The graph (should) show us this relationship. Yours doesn't. The ones you just linked are modular examples to illustrate a concept and clearly labelled to do such.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
I mean do you think John's job is to sit in a chair and press a button that earns the employer 10$ per hour? Employers have disparate needs and hire people to fill them. How much does a building janitor earn for a IT company?? ARRGHGH
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Yes, it is. It's a way of visualizing the data generated by a toy model expressing a more complicated mechanism. It just so happens in these models it's a clear analytic functional dependency, so you don't have to bother with generating the data and then drawing it out, you can just cut out the middle-man, but it's still not in itself data. You're expressing a model. Ok so it's a graph which is representing a model... quote:I would clearly delineate data from model, which you refuse to do, and it's making you look more and more ridiculous and frankly calls to question any social science credentials that you might have that you are refusing to make that distinction, instead opting to defend your original graph as itself data. It's not. It's just a way in which you're trying to visualize your model. You didn't answer the question. What word would you use to describe the information which informs a model? Why is data an inappropriate word to describe that information? ElCondemn posted:For those still confused, the data in question is his idea that at some point if you increase the minimum wage enough there might be a point at which it hurts the poor more than it helps them. No argument to date has been made as to the veracity of that "data", but that's only because the future is wild and unpredictable. People keep saying that literally no one doubts that the minimum wage must have negative consequences at a sufficiently high level and you just keep proving them wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 06:40 |
|
|
Regarding hand-wringing over paying people with disabilities 15$ an hour here is a real graph
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 19:42
|
|