|
Raskolnikov38 posted:I make $15 an hour and about 30% percent of each paycheck goes to taxes and deductions so I'm not seeing where assuming LTW's typo was a little bad math with taking taxes into account is blowing your mind. So now poor people don't pay 42% tax? I thought it was completely obvious that they do and anyone who thought that they didnt obviously doesnt know anything about poverty in America? His typo is fine, it happens, but seeing how out of touch idiots like you are with the personal finances of poor people is funny. Now you're backtracking but whatever.
|
# ? Jun 22, 2015 23:52 |
|
|
# ? May 15, 2024 03:07 |
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Oh whoops i mixed up the idiots that don't understand algebra or what a null hypothesis means in this thread, please forgive me. geriatric pirate is the idiot who insists that he can fully understand the world by scrying xlsxes
|
# ? Jun 22, 2015 23:53 |
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:So now poor people don't pay 42% tax? I thought it was completely obvious that they do and anyone who thought that they didnt obviously doesnt know anything about poverty in America? on a meta-discussion level it's cool how you think trying to nail him down for being factually incorrect on a flippant remark somehow doesn't make you look defensive or desperate like you're a surprising little origami of bad arguing, just when i think you're getting boring you come up with some new nuance of poo poo, a different shade of green
|
# ? Jun 22, 2015 23:54 |
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:poor people in america literally pay 42% tax and are literally starving on the street - an american who really knows what its like to be poor and thinks MMT is mainstream economics So how about those jobs in the US city that you live in guy
|
# ? Jun 22, 2015 23:54 |
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Higher taxes are good, unless
|
# ? Jun 22, 2015 23:54 |
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:So now poor people don't pay 42% tax? I thought it was completely obvious that they do and anyone who thought that they didnt obviously doesnt know anything about poverty in America? I am saying that in my attempt to understand the discrepancy between LTW's number and yours was an assumption that LTW was guesstimating what the take home was. But please continue to read more into it if it makes you happy.
|
# ? Jun 22, 2015 23:55 |
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:So now poor people don't pay 42% tax? I thought it was completely obvious that they do and anyone who thought that they didnt obviously doesnt know anything about poverty in America? I am literally a poor person you moron. All the money I made last week is spent already on my bills. To be more precise, I have about fifty bucks of that left, plus, again whatever oddball amount I get on my paycheck for a period where my schedule got wonky because I got a new job that I ended up leaving and going back to my old one. I also have rent due in a week. That will consume my tip money for this week, completely. But please, continue telling me I'm not poor.
|
# ? Jun 22, 2015 23:56 |
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:I am saying that in my attempt to understand the discrepancy between LTW's number and yours was an assumption that LTW was guesstimating what the take home was. But please continue to read more into it if it makes you happy. Yes, makes perfect sense, clearly why you responded with a comment about state taxes and social security when I asked whether poor people really pay 42% tax. Please, tell me more about poor people. You clearly know the topic very well.
|
# ? Jun 22, 2015 23:58 |
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Please, tell me more about poor people. You clearly know the topic very well. Says the man living in a different country with a functioning welfare system, lecturing actual Americans on what America is really like. You smug, ignorant gently caress.
|
# ? Jun 23, 2015 00:01 |
Geriatric Pirate posted:Yes, makes perfect sense, clearly why you responded with a comment about state taxes and social security when I asked whether poor people really pay 42% tax. You're arguing in favor of a mandatory lifestyle of 70-80 hour workweeks.
|
|
# ? Jun 23, 2015 00:01 |
|
Effectronica posted:The paper concludes 100% pass-through in the formal conclusion. The data provided, however, shows that the increases in prices are much less than the increases in costs. Yeah that makes lots of sense. quote:Therefore, the costs must somehow disappear. But that doesn't change that only 7% of the actual increase in wages is transmitted as price increases. Which is minor, and likely to be weighted towards premium items and services. No. Quark already didn't read the paper and tried this too so maybe you missed that (it was two arguments before R^2, around the time he was trying the McDonalds math himself. asdf32 posted:Did you read the paper? The entire conclusion, that the data matches a competitive model, is predicated on high pass through. A general tip: actually criticize the study instead of trying to claim the study isn't saying things the study is saying or making sweeping generalizations about science or statistics (yeah ok, I know this is your thing quark so it will be hard). This study actually probably isn't the be-all-end-all on this subject.
|
# ? Jun 23, 2015 00:05 |
asdf32 posted:Yeah that makes lots of sense. A general tip: don't make snide comments about how stupid people are in a post where you're going to mangle the quote function. Or write gibberish like "thing quark". You're using the useless section of the data, 3.1. Section 3.2 shows the increase that I stated overall for the restaurant sector. Furthermore, if the actual price increase is tiny, there is only ideological reasons to care whether it's coming from profit or not. Namely, the ideology of always having to be right.
|
|
# ? Jun 23, 2015 00:14 |
|
QuarkJets posted:Is this a joke? Am I living in real life right now? Yep in real life you made idiotic generalizations about science and statistics. The null hypothesis doesn't imply science goes around knowing nothing about everything. We don't need to prove that, yes, bananas, and mangoes, and pears fall just like apples once gravity is accepted as a general theory. What we use as the default relationship (relativity, evolution) is field specific, and has nothing to do with statistics. I'll come back to this. quote:By definition, its fractional certainty is greater than or equal to the fractional certainty of the lower level data. I understand the importance of looking at these details for this study, but that does not improve the uncertainties of these measurements. The BLS CPI data is all collected in approximately the same way, and in this kind of case you aren't able to improve your uncertainties by removing measurements. Your argument would only be accurate if there was reason to believe that a large subset of the BLS data was subject to significantly greater uncertainties than the BLS data used in this study, but there is no reason to suspect this. You implied going back to the base data would increase their uncertainty. Which it obviously won't. You can't change the certainty of underlying data. You can find ways to make better use of it. quote:You don't actually know what statistical significance means! There are two possibilities here: 1) R^2 doesn't matter 2) R^2 does matter and we should therefore compare it to the studies you do like. Guess what we're going to find out about your favorite comparable studies if we do 2. Going back to The Null Hypothesis what I'm sure you want to argue is that if overall uncertainty is high we have no choice but to accept zero relationship between wages and prices or wages and unemployment. This would be completely wrong, at least as a generalization. Effectronica posted:A general tip: don't make snide comments about how stupid people are in a post where you're going to mangle the quote function. Or write gibberish like "thing quark". No the 0.7 finding comes from 3.2. Actually both our ideologies are in agreement that minimum wage would be better policy if it came from profit. I was deliberately quoting myself. Because as I said, I literally covered that 4 pages ago.
|
# ? Jun 23, 2015 00:31 |
|
well this thread is complete poo poo but now that the primary shitters are probated can we at least accept that: A: raising the minimum wage vastly increases the buying power of the bottom class in America B: the offset is a probable .7 percent increase in the cost of goods that depend on minimum wage labor and that point A is a boost to the overall economy that vastly outstrips any detrimental effect of point B?
|
# ? Jun 23, 2015 00:52 |
|
I would think so, but we apparently can't agree on how statistics even work or what a null hypothesis means, so I don't think you could even get us to agree that the sky is blue. At least these last few (dozen) pages have helped me get my brain back in statistical analysis mode, even if it's just to reassure myself that what I learned from majoring in Econ has actually stuck.
|
# ? Jun 23, 2015 01:02 |
|
I love how a ton of posters dog-piled on asdf32 regarding his statement about the null hypothesis and told him he was totally wrong. He actually was right. When hypothesis testing, the choice of the null hypothesis is an ideological choice. There is no Law of Statistics telling you to select a certain null hypothesis. That's a pretty common misconception.Dr. Fishopolis posted:well this thread is complete poo poo but now that the primary shitters are probated can we at least accept that: Did anybody actually claim A? It pretty much was the consensus (even asdf32 eventually admitted as much, although that didn't stop other posters from putting words in his mouth) that raising the minimum wage helped the bottom class, but I don't know if that was considered a boost to the overall economy. Edit: I guess I really meant to replace "bottom class" with "minimum wage workers" in the section above. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 03:50 on Jun 23, 2015 |
# ? Jun 23, 2015 01:03 |
silence_kit posted:I love how a ton of posters dog-piled on asdf32 regarding his statement about the null hypothesis and told him he was totally wrong. He actually was right. When hypothesis testing, the choice of the null hypothesis is an ideological choice. There is no Law of Statistics telling you to select a certain null hypothesis. That's a pretty common misconception. Which is why it would be perfectly reasonable to write a scientific paper in which the hypothesis being tested is also the null hypothesis.
|
|
# ? Jun 23, 2015 01:51 |
|
silence_kit posted:much was the consensus (even asdf32 eventually admitted as much, although that didn't stop other posters from putting words in his mouth) that raising the minimum wage helped the bottom class, but I don't know if that was considered a boost to the overall economy. Does someone really have to prove that increasing wages for the class with the least disposable income boosts the economy? Do we have to post a study to support a claim that cats are sometimes, but not always fluffy?
|
# ? Jun 23, 2015 02:32 |
|
silence_kit posted:Did anybody actually claim A? It pretty much was the consensus (even asdf32 eventually admitted as much, although that didn't stop other posters from putting words in his mouth) that raising the minimum wage helped the bottom class, but I don't know if that was considered a boost to the overall economy. Yeah man, he's been arguing consistently that the minimum wage is a regressive tax that doesn't benefit and probably overall hurts the poor as a class. asdf32 posted:People are having trouble processing multiple peices of this puzzle at the same time. asdf32 posted:Just to be clear, the implications of price increases are fairly straightforward. They don't torpedo minimum wage alone, instead they just indicate that the general population, not "capital", pays for the increase. And because of shopping habits (poor workers buy from poor workers), it nets out that minimum wage is effectively a regressive tax distributed to poor workers. Yes, minimum wage still helps minimum wage workers and you might continue to support it for this reason alone (or because you think it's "fair"), but if prices increase that means it's paid for by other poor workers disproportionately. asdf32 posted:I'm not disputing whether minimum a minimum wage workers who gets a raise is benefiting. They are benefiting. This is patently obvious. Many times people have misunderstood or strawmanned price debates to be about whether they cancel out the benefits for minimum wage workers. As should be obvious to everyone, that doesn't and can't happen entirely. I mean, you don't have to read the whole thread, but if you're wondering what a specific poster's position is, the '?' button exists for a reason VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 03:45 on Jun 23, 2015 |
# ? Jun 23, 2015 03:43 |
|
edit: nvm
silence_kit fucked around with this message at 07:00 on Jun 23, 2015 |
# ? Jun 23, 2015 03:55 |
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Does someone really have to prove that increasing wages for the class with the least disposable income boosts the economy? Do we have to post a study to support a claim that cats are sometimes, but not always fluffy? In this thread? Yes.
|
# ? Jun 23, 2015 03:56 |
|
edit: nvm, already brought up
silence_kit fucked around with this message at 06:17 on Jun 23, 2015 |
# ? Jun 23, 2015 06:12 |
|
asdf32 posted:A general tip: actually criticize the study instead of trying to claim the study isn't saying things the study is saying or making sweeping generalizations about science or statistics (yeah ok, I know this is your thing quark so it will be hard). This study actually probably isn't the be-all-end-all on this subject. asdf32 posted:Yep in real life you made idiotic generalizations about science and statistics. "Proving that your model accurately represents the data before drawing conclusions from it? That's idiotic" -- asdf32 quote:The null hypothesis doesn't imply science goes around knowing nothing about everything. We don't need to prove that, yes, bananas, and mangoes, and pears fall just like apples once gravity is accepted as a general theory. That analogy is simply terrible, and while the first sentence is true it's also not relevant quote:What we use as the default relationship (relativity, evolution) is field specific, and has nothing to do with statistics. I'll come back to this. That's true, very good. It's actually phenomena-specific rather than field specific but close enough quote:You implied going back to the base data would increase their uncertainty. Which it obviously won't. You can't change the certainty of underlying data. You can find ways to make better use of it. Wrong, go back and read the posts again. I stated that using a subset of a larger study would cause the fractional uncertainties to be the same or worse, whereas it's your belief that using fewer samples somehow improves the fractional uncertainty. You're right that you can't change the certainty of underlying data, which is exactly my point. It's very strange that you're stating this while also trying to claim that you can improve the certainty by just looking at smaller samples. quote:There are two possibilities here: I'm not rejecting this study on the basis of R^2, your inability to understand this is perplexing quote:Going back to The Null Hypothesis what I'm sure you want to argue is that if overall uncertainty is high we have no choice but to accept zero relationship between wages and prices or wages and unemployment. This would be completely wrong, at least as a generalization. Nope, I never said this, nor do I believe this. I'm not going to defend a position that I haven't taken. You commonly create strawman arguments and then jump right into them; I'm glad that this time you took a step back and asked me first whether your imagined argument is my actual argument. That's progress!
|
# ? Jun 23, 2015 06:46 |
|
I don't know about ya'll but I'm pumped finding out working poor people don't exist. Headed to the cemetery right now to dig up some friends and remind them they're not dead from choosing between treating a tooth ache versus making rent that month. Then I'll drive down to the local school supply charity building and let them kids know their parents aren't really poor and no they don't need those supplies, while admiring the empty halfway houses along the way. Thanks for shining the light of truth on us, GP.
|
# ? Jun 23, 2015 20:46 |
|
I'm starting a national tour where I visit all the pauper graves with a bullhorn in hand to demand those lazy fucks get a job and stop complaining.
|
# ? Jun 23, 2015 20:48 |
|
Is his argument that because a full time minimum wage worker is above a government set poverty threshold that there is no way anyone can be "working" and "poor"?
|
# ? Jun 23, 2015 21:17 |
|
Mavric posted:Is his argument that because a full time minimum wage worker is above a government set poverty threshold that there is no way anyone can be "working" and "poor"? The very best kind of correct.
|
# ? Jun 23, 2015 21:50 |
|
Mavric posted:Is his argument that because a full time minimum wage worker is above a government set poverty threshold that there is no way anyone can be "working" and "poor"? No, his argument is that he's a fuckwit from a Nordic social democracy who has so deeply internalized the social safety net available in his homeland that he simply cannot conceptualize that a person with a full time job could be poor.
|
# ? Jun 23, 2015 22:39 |
|
Mavric posted:Is his argument that because a full time minimum wage worker is above a government set poverty threshold that there is no way anyone can be "working" and "poor"? Most of Geriatric Pirate's arguments these days rely heavily on accusing his opponents of lying or spending too much time on the forums. But yes, at the root of this is a misconception that the minimum wage is already high enough to preclude people from being poor. Think you're poor? Obviously you're a liar, the minimum wage is already plenty high. Still think you're poor? Then stop wasting time on the forums and go get a second or third job, no big deal, you'll be rolling in money if you just weren't too lazy to work 120 hour weeks
|
# ? Jun 24, 2015 00:10 |
|
No, his argument is he's an obese toddler that hasn't learned object permanence yet. He sleeps with a night light on so capitalism doesn't disappear into the dark.
|
# ? Jun 24, 2015 00:32 |
|
President Kucinich posted:I don't know about ya'll but I'm pumped finding out working poor people don't exist. Headed to the cemetery right now to dig up some friends and remind them they're not dead from choosing between treating a tooth ache versus making rent that month. Then I'll drive down to the local school supply charity building and let them kids know their parents aren't really poor and no they don't need those supplies, while admiring the empty halfway houses along the way. President Kucinich posted:I'm starting a national tour where I visit all the pauper graves with a bullhorn in hand to demand those lazy fucks get a job and stop complaining. Liquid Communism posted:No, his argument is that he's a fuckwit from a Nordic social democracy who has so deeply internalized the social safety net available in his homeland that he simply cannot conceptualize that a person with a full time job could be poor. President Kucinich posted:No, his argument is he's an obese toddler that hasn't learned object permanence yet. Do you really think you're improving this thread or this forum by coming in when another user is probated and dropping sick burns on them?
|
# ? Jun 24, 2015 00:42 |
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Do you really think you're improving this thread or this forum by coming in when another user is probated and dropping sick burns on them? Fine, I'll shut up. President Kucinich fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Jun 24, 2015 |
# ? Jun 24, 2015 00:47 |
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Do you really think you're improving this thread or this forum by coming in when another user is probated and dropping sick burns on them? You know that they would be posted regardless. To be honest, I didn't realize he was probated (because I mostly post from my phone and don't pay attention to user icons).
|
# ? Jun 24, 2015 00:53 |
Absurd Alhazred posted:Do you really think you're improving this thread or this forum by coming in when another user is probated and dropping sick burns on them? It's more just celebrating the reprieve before they come back and we go back for another 100 pages of the same stupid discussion held up by the same 3 idiots.
|
|
# ? Jun 24, 2015 02:12 |
|
down with slavery posted:It's more just celebrating the reprieve before they come back and we go back for another 100 pages of the same stupid discussion held up by the same 3 idiots. A more productive celebration, in my opinion, would be to demonstrate a solid argument in their absence, to provide a good example.
|
# ? Jun 24, 2015 02:17 |
Absurd Alhazred posted:A more productive celebration, in my opinion, would be to demonstrate a solid argument in their absence, to provide a good example. Feel free to read the thread and view any number of solid arguments that have been put forth Also as long as the mods allow people to just drop pithy contentless oneliners the incentive to put forth effort doesn't really exist when it's just so GP can quote the first sentence and go for 10 pages about how poor people don't exist Geriatric Pirate posted:Member Since Maybe probate poo poo like this if you want a more productive discussion?
|
|
# ? Jun 24, 2015 02:25 |
|
down with slavery posted:Feel free to read the thread and view any number of solid arguments that have been put forth What is GP's current status?
|
# ? Jun 24, 2015 02:35 |
Absurd Alhazred posted:What is GP's current status? Then the thread becomes a news/hangout thread alongisde Q&A because "should the US raise the minimum wage" isn't really a highly contested topic here, nor should it be. The more interesting discussions are to be had about the feasibility of a GMI, "solutions" to automation eating away at demand for labor, etc. It will be a glorious 48 hours until his probation is gone.
|
|
# ? Jun 24, 2015 02:51 |
|
down with slavery posted:Then the thread becomes a news/hangout thread alongisde Q&A because "should the US raise the minimum wage" isn't really a highly contested topic here, nor should it be. The more interesting discussions are to be had about the feasibility of a GMI, "solutions" to automation eating away at demand for labor, etc. Your destiny awaits!
|
# ? Jun 24, 2015 03:18 |
|
|
# ? May 15, 2024 03:07 |
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Does someone really have to prove that increasing wages for the class with the least disposable income boosts the economy? Yes? FieryBalrog fucked around with this message at 03:40 on Jun 24, 2015 |
# ? Jun 24, 2015 03:37 |