|
esquilax posted:I think we agree, but it absolutely does not assume a 1:1 ratio, the "pruning" effect on productivity being less than the decrease in GDP is tautologically true assuming that jobs are productive quote:and I don't know why you're looking for edge cases when it's a generalization. quote:If you want to argue that productivity will increase, then there are ways to do that without attacking the math. For example, there are lot of good arguments you could pull from the CBO report itself:
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 15:37 |
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:Also, stuff like taking care of children, getting an education or writing a novel doesn't count towards GDP. Providing a nurturing environment to a child which results in fewer "broken windows" in the future, that reduces GDP. I find that a reasonable argument - economic production isn't everything and household production is missing from most measures of GDP. It just looks like denial in the context of responding to an "I told you so" statement and is just going to cement him in his position. It reads like this: A: Look at this report! The ACA will hurt the economy! B: Well, the economy isn't that important anyway. twodot posted:I'm saying this is a bad assumption. quote:My stance has been that the burden of showing that production will decrease in a manner that we care about is on the person complaining about the loss of jobs. esquilax fucked around with this message at 22:23 on Feb 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
We have less jobs now than we did in 2007 yet GDP is higher now than it was in 2007, how precisely does that reconcile with the idea that if you remove jobs from the economy GDP must fall which is the assertion being claimed here. e: Some graphs  
rscott fucked around with this message at 23:04 on Feb 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
esquilax posted:It is true for the vast, vast majority of jobs, must be true in aggregate, and you have offered no reason or argument to show that in aggregate the 2.5 million jobs literally have productivity less than zero. This is what I meant when I said that you are trying to score points rather than advancing an argument. quote:I assume that gaan kak is asking for help in order to convince the other person about his point of view.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
Sorry guys - I was addressing twoquestions, not equilax.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
rscott posted:We have less jobs now than we did in 2007 yet GDP is higher now than it was in 2007, how precisely does that reconcile with the idea that if you remove jobs from the economy GDP must fall which is the assertion being claimed here. Because productivity in 2013 was higher than in 2007. In order for 2024 GDP to be unaffected by the loss of jobs, 2024 (with ACA) productivity must be higher than 2024 (without ACA) productivity. No one who dislikes the ACA is going to be convinced of that without being given a provocative argument. It's entirely plausible that a particular loss of jobs will coincide with GDP growth, and it's entirely plausible that the ACA as a whole, even after the loss of jobs, will cause economic growth. But "fewer jobs means a smaller economy" is a very intuitive argument and easy to internalize, so denying it without giving any reasons just makes the denier look stubborn to anyone who doesn't already agree with them. This is what I meant in my post where I said that the argument "seems pretty true" - that it is very intuitive but may not necessarily be true in reality (this is a separate issue from the math stuff I posted). In a general sense, I always assume that people asking for help ITT are trying to convince someone else of their point of view but can't figure out how. It's certainly a lot more charitable than assuming the alternative, that posters are being confronted with an argument that they can't defeat and are simply being stubborn/looking for validation. With the context of this thread in mind, telling the OP's opponent that the burden of proof is on them (whether or not they actually hold it in the philosophical sense) to prove their intuitions to your satisfaction is not a good way of convincing anyone, and it doesn't help gaan kak in any way. I posted arguments about why the penny argument was dumb, and why productivity and GDP may increase due to the ACA. Based on my understanding of the opponent's argument and beliefs, this would be a good basis for a response. While I feel that Dr. Arbitrary's post was counterproductive, they at least tried to give arguments that could help gaan kak. I just don't think suggesting he use the argument "the burden of proof is on you" is a constructive response in this thread. Unlearning posted:Sorry guys - I was addressing twoquestions, not equilax.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
We are fundamentally opposed to the purpose of a thread like this then. If someone is unwilling to prove their positive assertions then you aren't going to change their mind. I'm not saying you have to be all rationalwiki and lay down your trump card and be all  about it. I've had a fair bit of success with just asking people why they believe what they do. Oftentimes they'll say something like common sense or some other justification that That Is Just How Things Work. In that case I say something like, "well if it's common sense or if it's that self evident then finding some kind of evidence or something should be really easy right?" If they don't have anything right on hand that they can offer up I'll drop it for a few days/a week until it comes up again, and keep gently hammering that point of empirical evidence, empirical evidence, empirical evidence. It doesn't work with everyone, especially older people but I have objectively changed the opinions of at least a half a dozen people on welfare fraud using this technique.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 13:31
|
|
|
rscott posted:We are fundamentally opposed to the purpose of a thread like this then. If someone is unwilling to prove their positive assertions then you aren't going to change their mind. I'm not saying you have to be all rationalwiki and lay down your trump card and be all One important thing to remember about contemporary mainline Republicans is that the like white not-poor Protestants, and hate everyone else. Poor people, ethnic minorities, religious minorities all must suffer, and any policy that benefits them is morally wrong. That's why they're so against food stamps existing for example, is because it benefits poor people a lot without inflicting pain or misery of any kind. Never mind it's a subsidy towards the food industry and reduces crime for a pittance, better to spend ten times that on prisons so the undesirables are in sufficient misery for not being Us. Unless something you're arguing for satisfies their unquenchable malice and hatred for People Not Like Us, you'll never get through.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
I didn't realize I'd spur quite so much debate when asking for help with a debate! I tried to play the middle ground between what rscott/twodot (the burden of proof really falls on the other guy to prove that the ACA will reduce GDP) and esquilax (even if productivity falls, that's not the end of the world) were saying - the first half of my reply with the former, second half of my post the latter (i.e., "let's say we accept that..."). I know that, technically, that's a weaker way to go about things as he will just press the point as if I am conceding it, but this is ultimately for others reading the conversation and not just trying to convert an arrogant libertarian. quote:It seems there's a bit of moving of the goalposts going on here. The original case made was that the PPACA would help the economy and reduce the costs of health care. It was supposed to reduce costs, increase efficiency, bring down waste, and make us more internationally competitive. Now I'll grant that you were not here for that debate, so I cannot put this on you in particular. But the critics of the bill said it would be a drag on the economy, and were called liars and worse for their trouble. Now when we're starting to see increasing lines of evidence supporting the drag hypothesis, and the problem is that I cannot show definitively that it will cause overall economic contraction. Dios mío. The verbosity here is killing me. I much prefer making shorter posts that attack the heart of what the other person is saying, rather than spewing out a gish-galloping novel. What I think when I read this is, firstly, that he's attacking me for a point that I'm never making ("the ACA will have no negative economic effects"). He's fundamentally also not grasping the production/consumption dualism; I used the seed bank phrasing and it seemed to be ineffectual. It just spurred him into this long, tangential spiel about investment that I'm having trouble connecting with the original point of contention in the first place. His second-to-last paragraph is just debt-scaremongering, and his last one is simply the point that the overall number of jobs available might decrease slightly, to which I reply "so what?" I'm going to just circle back to the beginning and not get drawn into a series of drawn-out side debates that I've had a million times.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 05:11
|
|
|
You don't have to vomit tons of words at him in response, just find the few key points in his argument the best you can and break it down that way. If he doesn't think production and consumption are the same thing then why are things produced in the first place? Like this analogy right here:quote:Saying that production and consumption are "two sides of the same coin" is like saying mugging and being mugged are "two sides of the same coin." makes very little sense unless you look at producers preying on consumers or something (lol libertarians) and there's all sorts of weird hosed up poo poo there that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. People buy things from producers because they need something. That's the whole point of free trade right, it's supposed to be a mutually beneficial exchange. Whole thing falls flat on its face. Basically this guy sounds like he read the Wealth Of Nations and a couple of bloomberg articles and thinks he's an economist. No one who knows anything about the subject argues the debt angle in good faith like that. Not that he's arguing in good faith to begin with because he's already admitted he hasn't actually read it. Should probably reinforce that along with the empirical evidence thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 06:40
|
|
|
Probably done to death in this thread, but since the budget deal has kicked up discussion again, the airwaves are being flooded with WE NEED TO CUT SPENDING NO MORE DEBT stuff, and my personal circle has started to assimilate that talking point as well. Can someone post some quick resources that contribute to discussion in this direction? Personally I get the feeling that this is getting people barking up the wrong tree, but I currently don't have any factual basis for that intuition.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
If you've got archives, a past debt thread had some good stuff in it. Try hitting up these guys: http://www.cepr.net/index.php/component/option,com_issues/Itemid,22/issue,28/lang,en/task,view_issue/ e:this paper of theirs, in debunking a debt-alarmist film, does a great job of breaking down a lot of the issues you'll see brought up in this sort of discussion. eviltastic fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Feb 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
I'm taking Principles of Macroeconomics and my hardcore Libertarian econ professor dedicated part of our classes's last lesson to UNFUNDED LIABILITIES. Basically, his claim is that America's projected debt out to 75 years is over $100 trillion dollars. All our children will be doomed to work in the Chinese coal mines unless "something" is done. I already have a pretty good idea why this is bullshit, but I'd really like a professional, layman-friendly response to this claim.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 08:05
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:I'm taking Principles of Macroeconomics and my hardcore Libertarian econ professor dedicated part of our classes's last lesson to UNFUNDED LIABILITIES. Basically, his claim is that America's projected debt out to 75 years is over $100 trillion dollars. All our children will be doomed to work in the Chinese coal mines unless "something" is done. Try punching him square in the jaw and laughing at him for being a professor who is less informed than your average SA poster. The simple answer is that social security has been an UNFUNDED LIABILITY for 79 years since 1935 when it was enacted without any major issues. Social Security, Medicare and Medicare prescription drug program are the 'big three' that get cited as the scary $100 trillion dollar unfunded liabilities. The fact is that these programs are pay-go. That is to say that they are paid for by payroll taxes on the current generation of workers rather than gathered up over a lifetime as a typical pension might work. The government is able to do this, unlike a private company, because they have the power to tax and it is a fair assumption that there will be people working in the future to pay for the upcoming retirees. Simply speaking that $100 trillion (which is actually closer to $30 trillion when looking at non-heritage action numbers) unfunded liability assumes that no one pays a dime for Social Security, Medicare or Medicare drug plan for 75 years. If no one is paying payroll taxes for 75 years I assume we have bigger problems, such as a gamma ray burst, to have been worrying about in the interim. The logic that says we have to pay this poo poo in advance is the same reason why the post office is struggling, because they are being made to save up years of pension funds to satisfy wackjobs who don't understand how government pensions work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 08:45
|
|
|
Caros posted:Simply speaking that $100 trillion (which is actually closer to $30 trillion when looking at non-heritage action numbers) unfunded liability assumes that no one pays a dime for Social Security, Medicare or Medicare drug plan for 75 years. If no one is paying payroll taxes for 75 years I assume we have bigger problems, such as a gamma ray burst, to have been worrying about in the interim. I actually raised my hand during class and pressed him on this point. He claimed that the $65 or $85 or $100 trillion number (it depends on what Youtube video you're watching) is the remainder after future taxes have been collected. If he's full of poo poo I'd really like a reputable source to prove it. I'm thinking about writing a letter to the president of my university complaining about how my Principles of Macroeconomics class is being taught as Libertarian Political Science.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 08:51
|
|
|
Also, we'll be breaking our backs in American coal mines to pay off our debt to ourselves long before the Chinese: Typical Pubbie posted:I'm thinking about writing a letter to the president of my university complaining about how my Principles of Macroeconomics class is being taught as Libertarian Political Science. You might want to. It sounds like what an old public speaking professor would ramble on about in between student presentations.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 08:57
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:I actually raised my hand during class and pressed him on this point. He claimed that the $65 or $85 or $100 trillion number (it depends on what Youtube video you're watching) is the remainder after future taxes have been collected. If he's full of poo poo I'd really like a reputable source to prove it. I'm thinking about writing a letter to the president of my university complaining about how my Principles of Macroeconomics class is being taught as Libertarian Political Science. Ohhh, he's using that version of it. Still wrong but in a different way. This breaks down reasonably well what is wrong with the idea. To summarize, seventy five year projections are garbage. Seventy five years ago today was 1939, and I can pretty much guarantee that budget projections and ideas about what the future economy were going to be like in 1939 didn't really bear out in relation to fact. Particularly in the modern age things change very, very quickly. More to the specifics, the big programs, Social Security and Medicare are retirement programs which are subject to even more changes than you'd expect. For example, if the US switches to single payer healthcare at pretty much and point in the next 40 years you can effectively eliminate the entire medicare part of the cost there, because US health costs will drop like a rock tied to a bigger rock tied to some kind of gravity increasing device which exponentially doubles the effect of gravity solely upon rocks. The point is that these numbers assume everything stays exactly the same, that costs keep increasing at the same rate they are now, even though they have been slowing, that no improvements are made to these programs, or changes of any kind really. The whole thing is just stupid when we can't even estimate our budget over the course of a decade.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 09:14
|
|
|
Caros posted:The fact is that these programs are pay-go. That is to say that they are paid for by payroll taxes on the current generation of workers rather than gathered up over a lifetime as a typical pension might work. The government is able to do this, unlike a private company, because they have the power to tax and it is a fair assumption that there will be people working in the future to pay for the upcoming retirees. The problem is exactly this assumption though. The number of retirees per worker will peak under our generation during our prime earning years. We get to subsidize a lifetime of baby boomers paying abnormally low taxes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 13:28
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:I'm thinking about writing a letter to the president of my university complaining about how my Principles of Macroeconomics class is being taught as Libertarian Political Science. Ding ding ding ding. Do this
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 13:48
|
|
|
Can someone point me to an ethnographic breakdown of the Californian legislative Assembly? My assumption is that whites still make up a majority of elected officials, but I need a leisure source to either deny or confirm this for me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
Brown Blitzkrieg posted:Can someone point me to an ethnographic breakdown of the Californian legislative Assembly? My assumption is that whites still make up a majority of elected officials, but I need a leisure source to either deny or confirm this for me. Out of the 40 state senators for California: White 25 Asian 3 Hispanic 8 Black 2 Vacant 2 Male 26 Female 12 Vacant 2 Out of the 80 Assembly members: White 47 Asian 6 Hispanic 19 Black 7 Vacant 1 Male 60 Female 19 Vacant 1 I just went through their official websites on the California government webpages for this. Edit: Here's the data in handy chart form: 
Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Feb 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
Welp, in response to my saying that we elect leaders to make tough decisions, not to pander to voters, I was met with... a link to the US Constitution.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
There's arguing in bad faith, then there's that. They're clearly not interested in debate or discussion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 05:56
|
|
|
It's a Facebook group that claims to be neutral on a particular topic (development, specifically, they only support "good" development) but in reality it's a woman mad that a new apartment building is going to be built in the lot behind her coop.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 06:12
|
|
|
I'm done with politics.
Earth fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Jun 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
Earth posted:What is that quote where sometime in the Reagan era there was a guy high up that ways saying something like: "you can't say 'those blacks are just no good' anymore; now you have to say 'those welfare recipients are just terrible and feeding off the makers.'" It was basically the birth of dog whistle racism, and the quote was so blatant it was disgusting. quote:You start out in 1954 by saying, "friend of the family, friend of the family, friend of the family." By 1968 you can't say "friend of the family" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "friend of the family, friend of the family."
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
I'm done with politics.
Earth fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Jun 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
What is the going consensus on Facebook's new gender options? I had a quick debate with a very rational, well reasoned friend of mine about it. He's opposed to having as many as options as there are (56 or something). As a straight white male, I hesitate to really get involved with what people choose to identify themselves as, but my argument went something like this: I believe gender is not binary, but more of a line, and a person can be at any point of that line, with "super straight" on one side, "bisexual" somewhere in the middle, and "super homosexual" on the other end. I agree that Facebook is giving us too many options. It seems like Facebook is trying to register an option for every single dot on that line, instead of just doing the "easy" thing and removing gender from the equation altogether. I think that eventually we will all come to see labeling something like gender as overly messy and over-complicated, but for now, with the gender rights movement coming more into view, people with "complicated" genders are eager to label themselves as something, anything, just to get out from under the shadow of binary gender assignment. I think the movement probably needs something like an "unnecessary" amount of options for people to realize that something like gender is too complicated to label and that something like what Facebook is doing will eventually result in people realizing labeling gender is not really needed. Essentially, it has to get "worse" (as in, a ton of options) before it gets "better" (no gender labels at all). Does this seem like a decent argument? Again, I'm a straight white male, so I really am uncomfortable with even attempting to speak for people that have been discriminated against due to their chosen gender. Does that make sense? Anything else to add? Am I completely off base here?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
The interesting thing about the Facebook options is that many of them are the exact same term with slightly different punctuation and spacing, and that many of them besides have very minor use. It's way more options than what might be considered the most majorly used alternates, but it goes far enough that many people are perhaps rightfully upset that it didn't go far enough for whatever was just below the cut. So what you have out of it is a "compromise" position that doesn't really make most people happy at all. If they wanted to have this many, they might as well have gone ahead and made it a freeform text box like religion, location and so on. If they wanted to specifically only have a curated list for any reason, they should have had a lot fewer options with an explicit other. But incidentally, Obsolete posted:I believe gender is not binary, but more of a line, and a person can be at any point of that line, with "super straight" on one side, "bisexual" somewhere in the middle, and "super homosexual" on the other end. That would be sexuality that you're describing there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
You're right. I meant to say, "male" (genitalia + identifies as male) on one end, "female" on the other end, then everything in between as the remainder of the line. Or just keep it as I have it and change it to sexuality. Didn't mean to cause confusion there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
While facebook means well they did have some odd options in there that kinda make me think they don't know what the hell they're doing like setting your gender to "cisgender" or the aforementioned copy of the same thing with different spacing. It seems to me like it's more meant to drum up press attention than anything else, but I'm one of those people who feels it should just be freeform (maybe with teletype to fill in common ones automatically?) EDIT: Also I wouldn't limit gender to one dimension, there's all sorts of other states out there that limiting it to "male, female or somewhere in between" is kinda disingenuous. I'm not saying to give those tumblr transracial otherkin any serious consideration but gender is probably more than just a one-dimensional spectrum. Shame Boy fucked around with this message at 05:44 on Feb 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 05:41
|
|
|
How impartial is the Congressional Budget Office? I've got a libertarian friend who waves their studies around like a kid who found his dad's gun, giving them a glowing endorsement about their utter impartiality. Of course, said friend is a libertarian and also thinks the bloody Cato Institute can always be trusted (climate denial, anyone?) so I figure I had better ask some other folk. Especially because I know this poo poo's going to get rubbed in my face tomorrow: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/02/18/cbo-obamas-minimum-wage-plan-would-cost-jobs-but-help-millions/
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 09:09
|
|
|
Augustus posted:How impartial is the Congressional Budget Office? Parallel Paraplegic posted:EDIT: Also I wouldn't limit gender to one dimension, there's all sorts of other states out there that limiting it to "male, female or somewhere in between" is kinda disingenuous. I'm not saying to give those tumblr transracial otherkin any serious consideration but gender is probably more than just a one-dimensional spectrum. Hell, I'm skeptical that "identifying as male" even means anything substantive, taken as a separate matter from your outward physical appearance, or what you want that appearance to be. The only definition I would tend to give it would be compliance with traditional standards of masculinity; liking sports, getting into fights, whatever. But if that's all it means, then this kind of gender identification is inherently regressive, because it continues and reaffirms the association of maleness and femaleness with particular social roles. Identification as something outside a male-female spectrum, you're basically getting into metaphysics, or religion. Taking your personality and calling it a gender, at best. Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 09:45 on Feb 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 09:24
|
|
|
Augustus posted:How impartial is the Congressional Budget Office? I've got a libertarian friend who waves their studies around like a kid who found his dad's gun, giving them a glowing endorsement about their utter impartiality. Of course, said friend is a libertarian and also thinks the bloody Cato Institute can always be trusted (climate denial, anyone?) so I figure I had better ask some other folk. Why would that article be particularly damning, or rubbed in your face? The fact that a small decrease in employment exists is not by itself an argument against minimum wage; supporters would say the benefits outweigh the cost. Your friend is going to scream about unemployment because libertarianism is an intellectually dishonest, idiotic philosophy, not because he has some rock solid evidence or argument. The most you could criticize legitimately is that it would not have much benefit, and that some other policy should be pursued instead like a minimum income or something. But I have a feeling he's not really interested in that line of argument.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 09:52
|
|
|
I've got the fantastic privilege of argueing about Climate Change , anyway they keep bringing up this  Which to me is a chart in geological time. They claim that since CO2 was at a higher level during a ice age it has no correlation to temperature. Anyway I presented my facts about it but seriously do not understand that chart.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
Augustus posted:How impartial is the Congressional Budget Office? They manage to reach consensus between free market pro war republicans and free market pro war democrats.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
Augustus posted:How impartial is the Congressional Budget Office? I've got a libertarian friend who waves their studies around like a kid who found his dad's gun, giving them a glowing endorsement about their utter impartiality. Of course, said friend is a libertarian and also thinks the bloody Cato Institute can always be trusted (climate denial, anyone?) so I figure I had better ask some other folk. This sounds like it'll reduce to a contradiction, and then he'll appeal to freedom. 1) People having more money is a good thing. This must be believed on pain of being inconsistent for advocating lowering taxes, removing regulation, etc, etc. 2) Having more money is a good thing, because it allows people to invest it/spend it the way they want, thus moving the economy/creating jobs/etc. 3) The CBO is saying that a lot of people will have a a bit more money, at the cost of a bit of people having a lot less money (by becoming unemployed) Contradictin: But if Libertarianism is right, then people having more money should create jobs, not destroy them. Response: The government set the wage, not the market, ergo it's bad. Market is good. And then you can have a discussion about market failures. Or he might go with an alternate Response: The CBO study is suspect in some way. I doubt he'll say this, because that promptly undermines all other evidence of the min. wage hike eliminating jobs. Buried alive fucked around with this message at 18:08 on Feb 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
Buried alive posted:This sounds like it'll reduce to a contradiction, and then he'll appeal to freedom. twodot fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Feb 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
Augustus posted:How impartial is the Congressional Budget Office? I've got a libertarian friend who waves their studies around like a kid who found his dad's gun, giving them a glowing endorsement about their utter impartiality. Of course, said friend is a libertarian and also thinks the bloody Cato Institute can always be trusted (climate denial, anyone?) so I figure I had better ask some other folk. Reading deeper into the report, it looks like they think that their actual estimate is about -500,000 low wage jobs. At the same time, they estimate that 900,000 people will be raised up over the poverty line. I'm sure your libertarian friend won't agree, but I don't give a gently caress about job creation if the 'Jobs' aren't good enough to get you out of poverty. 500,000 'jobs' are going to disappear and 900,000 people are going to move up to meet a bare minimum standard for dignity. Just for fun: http://www.theonion.com/articles/walmart-cuts-over-13000-of-what-it-calls-jobs,2908/
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 15:37 |
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44995-MinimumWage.pdf
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 20:58
|
|