From tax breaks, through GMI, to FULL COMMUNISM - poverty elimination station

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > From tax breaks, through GMI, to FULL COMMUNISM - poverty elimination station

«‹›109 »

Geriatric Pirate: Apr 25, 2008; by Nyc_Tattoo

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.

oh wait I see it now, you don't understand math or language.

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

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 29, 2024 09:05

boner confessor: Apr 25, 2013; by R. Guyovich

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

boner confessor: Apr 25, 2013; by R. Guyovich

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?

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.

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

BENGHAZI 2: Oct 13, 2007; by Cyrano4747

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

The typo isn't a big deal, though it did bring out another poverty expert (raskolnikov38) who thinks that poor people are paying 42% tax rates.

So how about those jobs in the US city that you live in guy

# ? Jun 22, 2015 23:54

Istvun: Apr 20, 2007; A better world is just $69.69 away.; Soiled Meat

Geriatric Pirate posted:

Higher taxes are good, unless ~~I'm~~ the poor who already cannot afford to make ends meet are paying them

Yes, I agree completely

# ? Jun 22, 2015 23:54

Raskolnikov38: Mar 3, 2007; We were somewhere around Manila when the drugs began to take hold

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?

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.

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

BENGHAZI 2: Oct 13, 2007; by Cyrano4747

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?

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.

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

Geriatric Pirate: Apr 25, 2008; by Nyc_Tattoo

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

BENGHAZI 2: Oct 13, 2007; by Cyrano4747

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

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

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.

Please, tell me more about poor people. You clearly know the topic very well.

You're arguing in favor of a mandatory lifestyle of 70-80 hour workweeks.

# ? Jun 23, 2015 00:01

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

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.

They did the math and came to between 0.56 and 1.09 [to pay for the entire minimum wage hike] (using a cost method which is easier than your attempt to guess at meal sales volume):

quote:
To get a sense of whether the observed price responses are consistent with competition,
we note that minimum wage labor�s share of total costs is equal to labor�s share of total
costs multiplied by minimum wage labor�s share of labor costs. 10-K company reports, the
Economic Census for Accommodations and Foodservices, and the IRS� Statistics on Income
Bulletin all provide an estimate of labor�s share of total costs, and in each, the sample median
and mean are around 30 to 35 percent.20 Unfortunately, we are less certain of minimum wage
labor�s share of total labor costs for the average firm. Using household level data, we know
that about a third of all restaurant workers are paid near the minimum wage over this
time period, constituting 17% of all payments to labor.21 Using these values, we make two
calculations that bound the competitive response. If there is only one type of labor, all firms
have the same employment level, and all firms either pay 0% of their workers or 100% of
their workers the minimum wage, depending on the labor market, then 33% of all firms pay
the minimum wage. Given this, and the fact that about 33% of total costs are in the form of
labor costs, then a 10% increase in the minimum wage raises prices by 10% � 33% � 33% =
1.09%. Alternatively, if all firms hire above minimum wage labor in equal proportions, then
each restaurant must have 17% of its labor costs going to minimum wage labor. Thus, a 10%
increase in the minimum wage should raise prices by 10% � 33% � 17% = 0.56%.

But cite another study that pins it at 0.7%

quote:
Aaronson and French (2007) use a calibrated model of labor demand that accounts for
both firm and worker heterogeneity to show that when these factors are explicitly accounted
for, the competitive model predicts prices will increase by roughly 0.7%.

Then they find that prices rise by roughly 0.7% and therefore conclude high pass through

quote:
Given that we find rather large price increases in response to minimum wage hikes, firms seem to
be able to push costs onto consumers, and are not having their profits greatly reduced.

Separately the city level data matches the predicted outcome of perfect competition:

quote:
The most noteworthy aspect of figure 1 is the positive correlation between the two series.
The regression coefficient γ is 0.36 with a robust, city clustered-corrected standard error of
0.24.32 Not only is the sign of this coefficient consistent with competition but the magnitude
is as well. Assuming perfect competition in the labor market, the regression coefficient should
equal labor�s share. Recall from section 3, labor�s share is approximately 30 to 35 percent.

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

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

asdf32 posted:

Yeah that makes lots of sense.

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.

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

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

QuarkJets posted:

Is this a joke? Am I living in real life right now?

The null hypothesis in a cause and effect study like this one is that there is no relationship between two measured variables. In this case, the null hypothesis is that a change in minimum wage does not cause a change in prices. In order to claim that prices change as a function of the minimum wage, a statistical model describing these variables must reject the null hypothesis. Failing to do that means that any observed relationship between the two variables is a fluke.

"No price increase after a 10% minimum wage increase" is the clear null hypothesis. That would be up for debate in a Statistics 101 classroom, perhaps, but not in the real world.

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!

I don't want to reject the study based on R squared alone. I want to reject the study based on their inability to reject the null hypothesis. Their extremely low R^2 merely means that their model does not describe the variance in the data well at all. Their model could in fact be a very good fit to the data despite that (because R^2 is not a goodness of fit metric), but that's beside the point; if the variance in the data is so large that their R^2 is basically zero, then it means that their uncertainties are likely enormous, which explains why they didn't bother trying to reject the null hypothesis.

But hey, that's the kind of thing to expect from a working paper. I don't fault them for having an extremely low R^2. I fault them for using a statistical model to claim correlation between two variables when that model fails an extremely important litmus test. The low R^2 really just reinforces this point, it's not important on its own.

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".

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.

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

Dr. Fishopolis: Aug 31, 2004; ROBOT

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

The Lord of Hats: Aug 22, 2010; Hello, yes! Is being very good day for posting, no?

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

silence_kit: Jul 14, 2011; by the sex ghost

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:

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?

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

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

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

Dr. Fishopolis: Aug 31, 2004; ROBOT

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

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

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.

If minimum wage passes on most costs as price increases and if minimum wage workers are close to evenly distributed within the economy then minimum wage won't transfer wealth. Both of these things are true to a large extent.

If minimum wage doesn't transfer wealth then it doesn't benefit the poor and doesn't even have the demand increasing benefits people here like.

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.

So it's not about a vague notion of whether price increases are "affordable" or not. It's simply about properly tracking who actually pays for minimum wage. If your support is based on the idea that minimum wage is good at redistributing wealth, price increases indicate it's not.

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.

That has nothing to do with my point here. My point is simply about who pays for it. A lot of people want to believe minimum wage is this:
"Captial" -> poor workers

But this price data (and demographic data) indicates it's not. It's:
Everyone (weighted towards poor people) -> minimum wage workers (only slightly weighted towards poor people).

So that's the point. It's a clearer picture of what's actually happening.

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 :shrug:

VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 03:45 on Jun 23, 2015

# ? Jun 23, 2015 03:43

silence_kit: Jul 14, 2011; by the sex ghost

edit: nvm

silence_kit fucked around with this message at 07:00 on Jun 23, 2015

# ? Jun 23, 2015 03:55

Zeitgueist: Aug 8, 2003; by Ralp

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.

:allears:

# ? Jun 23, 2015 03:56

silence_kit: Jul 14, 2011; by the sex ghost

edit: nvm, already brought up

silence_kit fucked around with this message at 06:17 on Jun 23, 2015

# ? Jun 23, 2015 06:12

QuarkJets: Sep 8, 2008

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 :shrug:

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:
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.

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

President Kucinich: Feb 21, 2003; Bitterly Clinging to my AK47 and Das Kapital

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

President Kucinich: Feb 21, 2003; Bitterly Clinging to my AK47 and Das Kapital

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

Mavric: Dec 14, 2006; I said "this is going to be the most significant televisual event since Quantum Leap." And I do not say that lightly.

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

ozmunkeh: Feb 28, 2008; hey guys what is happening in this thread

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

Liquid Communism: Mar 9, 2004; Out here, everything hurts.

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

QuarkJets: Sep 8, 2008

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

President Kucinich: Feb 21, 2003; Bitterly Clinging to my AK47 and Das Kapital

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

Absurd Alhazred: Mar 27, 2010; by Athanatos

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.

Thanks for shining the light of truth on us, GP.

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.

He sleeps with a night light on so capitalism doesn't disappear into the dark.

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

President Kucinich: Feb 21, 2003; Bitterly Clinging to my AK47 and Das Kapital

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

QuarkJets: Sep 8, 2008

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

down with slavery: Dec 23, 2013; STOP QUOTING MY POSTS SO PEOPLE THAT AREN'T IDIOTS DON'T HAVE TO READ MY FUCKING TERRIBLE OPINIONS THANKS

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

Absurd Alhazred: Mar 27, 2010; by Athanatos

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

down with slavery: Dec 23, 2013; STOP QUOTING MY POSTS SO PEOPLE THAT AREN'T IDIOTS DON'T HAVE TO READ MY FUCKING TERRIBLE OPINIONS THANKS

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
May 31, 2011
Post Count
18945
Post Rate
13.19 per day

pretty good ROI for your parents there

Maybe probate poo poo like this if you want a more productive discussion?

# ? Jun 24, 2015 02:25

Absurd Alhazred: Mar 27, 2010; by Athanatos

down with slavery posted:

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

Maybe probate poo poo like this if you want a more productive discussion?

What is GP's current status?

# ? Jun 24, 2015 02:35

down with slavery: Dec 23, 2013; STOP QUOTING MY POSTS SO PEOPLE THAT AREN'T IDIOTS DON'T HAVE TO READ MY FUCKING TERRIBLE OPINIONS THANKS

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

Absurd Alhazred: Mar 27, 2010; by Athanatos

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.

It will be a glorious 48 hours until his probation is gone.

Your destiny awaits!

# ? Jun 24, 2015 03:18

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 29, 2024 09:05

FieryBalrog: Apr 7, 2010; Grimey Drawer

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

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > From tax breaks, through GMI, to FULL COMMUNISM - poverty elimination station

«‹›109 »