Are you ready for President Pence???
- Thread starter SUPERPOKES
- Start date
Until you realize the ability to manipulate data in order to prove whatever point you want, you will continue to be blind. And before you blow that idea off, my father has his MS in Statistics and is a developer at one of the largest Big Data companies on the planet AND my wife is an Economist. Both of them know this alllllllll to well.
If you're really interested in being open-minded, read these links.
https://fee.org/articles/3-reasons-...AqhKPejdq_aHP0A0dRh-A9yaKBTubXzSEAaAjQS8P8HAQ
https://palmettopromise.org/proof-r...vz2zlwPSgx6HsDJQwKBS8Ydw-nnVEwFZqUaAsOy8P8HAQ
“Our preferred estimates suggest that the Seattle Minimum Wage Ordinance caused hours worked by low skilled workers (i.e., those earning under $19 per hour) to fall by 9.4% during the three quarters when the minimum wage was $13 per hour, resulting in a loss of 3.5 million hours worked per calendar quarter.
Importantly, the lost income associated with the hours reductions exceeds the gain associated with the net wage increase of 3.1%. We compute that the average low-wage employee was paid $1,897 per month. The reduction in hours would cost the average employee $179 per month, while the wage increase would recoup only $54 of this loss, leaving a net loss of $125 per month (6.6%) which is sizable for a low wage worker”
The numbers are staggering: the average low-wage worker in Seattle – the very people, Seattle’s city government is claiming to help – saw a 6.6% monthly wage decrease!
Read them. Thank you. I found this quote from the first article especially interesting:
"The standard economist’s argument against minimum wage laws is that, by increasing the cost of labor, they reduce the demand for it. In other words, they create unemployment. Ever since Card and Krueger's 1997 study, economists have been somewhat mixed on whether minimum wage laws actually have this effect in practice."
Exactly.
I still stand by the numerous studies and research that provides ample proof that the minimal wage does not do what you claimed it does.
We need to increase the minimum wage to a liveable wage and this is a policy Democrats need to run on. Let the Republicans run against it and we will see what the people think.
Last edited:
You're dumb as a rock. And I bring that up because you have no idea, no education or experience, that informs your statement to "stand by" the studies you cite. You have zero idea how to evaluate their methodology, data sources, underpinning theories, hypothesis tested, or how to interpret the results.
To claim you "stand by" those papers is incredibly funny yet 100% intellectually dishonest....
You have zero authority.
Or better still...
Go into the details of the aspects of WHY you believe those that you "stand by" are more conclusive.
1. What methodology do you see superior in the studies you support compared to alternatives?
2. What assumptions are good or bad in the structuring of studies for and against your taken position?
3. Point to two or three studies that demonstrate robust statistical examination.
4. Which economically applicable theories support your position?
You have the floor to demonstrate I'm incorrect about your ability to apply statistical methodology and hypothesis testing.
Go into the details of the aspects of WHY you believe those that you "stand by" are more conclusive.
1. What methodology do you see superior in the studies you support compared to alternatives?
2. What assumptions are good or bad in the structuring of studies for and against your taken position?
3. Point to two or three studies that demonstrate robust statistical examination.
4. Which economically applicable theories support your position?
You have the floor to demonstrate I'm incorrect about your ability to apply statistical methodology and hypothesis testing.
Do regular politically uninvolved voters have this information? Plenty of worried Democrats say no, they don't. The Dem messaging to the masses is way too much Trump and not nearly enough policy.
Interesting, considering one of the articles you linked too actually references the research you are now dismissing as bias...
"The standard economist’s argument against minimum wage laws is that, by increasing the cost of labor, they reduce the demand for it. In other words, they create unemployment. Ever since Card and Krueger's 1997 study, economists have been somewhat mixed on whether minimum wage laws actually have this effect in practice."
Squirm some more.
Interesting, considering one of the articles you linked too actually references the research you are now dismissing as bias...
"The standard economist’s argument against minimum wage laws is that, by increasing the cost of labor, they reduce the demand for it. In other words, they create unemployment. Ever since Card and Krueger's 1997 study, economists have been somewhat mixed on whether minimum wage laws actually have this effect in practice."
Squirm some more.
last word
I'm not squirming.
My side is winning. The economy is turning the corner. Jobs are returning.
Jobs started returning under a Democrat President. A net gain of 11.3 million jobs from when Obama took office, more than 15 million if one looks at just the post-recession years.
The economy turned the corner under Obama after the mess he inherited.
I read a few.
I'm asking you to demonstrate you have the ability to peer review even one. This means you independently explain the statistical validity and methodolgy used to test each hypothesis.
I'll await your insight.
....
But I don't expect an answer.
I don't expect you have a clue what I'm asking you to do.
Which ones did you read? We can have a detailed discussion about one of those.
Saved for later.
What is the measuring rod for evaluating success v. failure in Democrats in 2018?
Control of one or both houses?
A net gain of seats whether or not it results in control of either houses?
What's the metric we need to use when people want to get back with you and revisit you statement.
Asking for a friend.
TIA.
Avoidance by you.
You don't know what I'm saying. You've been given a chance to augment your standing as someone with an informed opinion, and you don't take the opportunity.
Being ignorant to understanding hypothesis testing is fine, most dont know it well.
But you're avoiding the opportunity to bring authority to your message board presence. I've extended that opportunity to you.
You assumed the posture of having validated those studies...you "stand by" them.
Yet you utterly fail to grasp the ring...to show others the validity you found.
You win the Ignorant Poser award. When you're through playing in the kiddie pool, I'll revisit any value placed in something you "stand by."
We can measure it by the average House seat loss a sitting President's political party suffers during a midterm election. We can use Gallup's numbers.
When a President has an approval rating above 50% in the final Gallup poll before the midterm, the average seat loss for the President's party is 14 seats in the House. When it is below 50%, the average seat loss is 36.
Run this by your friend (CrazyBS) and let me know if it works for him.
Last edited:
So Democrats are successful in 2018 by your measure if Trump has a below 50% approval rating and they gain more than 36 seats? Gain more than 14 seats if his approval rating? Success is meeting or exceeding the historical average?
I have no idea to what or who you are referring to here. You sure get your panties in a wad when someone asks you to define your metrics though.
Oh, I thought you were asking what metric "we" should use for evaluating success v. failure for Democrats in 2018 since you asked, "What's the metric we need to use when people want to get back with you and revisit you[r] statement."
I'm more than glad to use any legitimate and fair metric when determining success for either party come 2018. The historical average was just the first one to come to mind.
That group is a progressive group. It will have messaging bias just like conservative groups do. Do you put equal thought and analysis into both ends of the spectrum?
The "report" you quoted is from 2015. It's 2017. That's two years of additional data. Has the group revisited their report to include the latest data?
I was asking for your metric of success when we get back to you.
I personally would say that merely meeting the historical average seat gain is basically the definition of a "mediocre" performance by Democrats rather than a "successful" one...but meh...don't care that much. Just wanted some clarity on how you would define success in 2018 for Dems.
So every study and report given on that webpage has a progressive bias?
Which report are you referencing?
If you draw the same conclusion as the authors by reading their conclusion, then you are subject to every particle of bias in the report whether its right or wrong or both. If that's not what you've done, and you've independently analyzed the data and the methodology, then you should be able to brief the board on your methodology to confirm or refute conclusions in the report. That's what Brad is asking you to show. If you've done that, it should be easy for you to post about.
You do know why there are always competing narratives for everything in politics, right? Medicine, especially when it comes to pharmaceuticals and medical devices, is afflicted with the same issue, except in medicine, people lose big lawsuits when they blindly go with biased information.
Nope, we are talking about party success in midterms.
Obama's final Gallup approval rating before both of his midterms was below 50%, meaning a good metric for judging Republican Party success in those midterms would be +36 seat gain in the House.
In 2010, Republicans had a +63. Very successful midterm for them per the historical average.
In 2014, Republicans had a +13. Not very successful per the historical average.
Nope, didn't say or imply that all. I'm not going to read the stuff. I'm actually for minimum wage increases, but I'm for ones based on sound economic study, not an arbitrary one that protestors made up. Have you read the very recent information regarding the reported negative impact of minimum wage increases in locales that have imposed them? Commentary on those?
How much competing information is included in that website for comparison? Generally a "non-partisan" source has information from sources other than just those supporting the desired outcome.
So gaining 13 seats in 2014 after losing 8 in 2012 and gaining 63 in 2010 isn't successful? If you look at the historical perspective on what those additional 13 seats accomplished, if you aren't a blind partisan, you'll see that Republicans were very successful in 2014.
Similar threads
