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.No, actually this claim you made has been proven false. Extensive research doesn't back up this common claim made by those on the right.
Below a link to a site that provides ample resources that prove your claim to be false. Here is a quote from just one of the reports, from 2015:
"Economists cite several reasons why increases in the minimum wage, which raise employers’ cost, generally do not cost jobs. Increased pay adds money to workers’ pocketbooks and allows them to buy more goods and services, creating higher demand, which in turn requires hiring more workers. The higher wage may make it easier to attract applicants and results in less turnover of workers, lowering costs of employers.
Our examination of employment statistics in states found no evidence of employment loss in states that have increased the minimum wage and more evidence that suggests employment increases faster when there is an increase in the minimum wage."
https://www.businessforafairminimum...-minimum-wage-increases-do-not-cause-job-loss
I disagree.
They have rich white people heading up a resistance movement against rich white people.
Their plan is flawless.
Oh I know sy. I just enjoy challenging their blatantly false presuppositions (e.g. Democrats have no policy proposals, Democratic voters are low-information voters, liberals are dumb, etc.) and watching them squirm.
Maybe something will get through to at least one of them at some point though. Maybe.
If you're really interested in being open-minded, read these links.
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 will see what the people think.
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.
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.
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.
Go into the details of the aspects of WHY you believe those that you "stand by" are more conclusive.
Did you read the resources?
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.Sure...
(1) Infrastructure Reform (something similar to a Rebuild America Act. Most Democrats believe this should be front and center in Democratic messaging going forward. Trump has promised it but hasn't delivered and most likely won't. Infrastructure reform also helps with job creation.)
(2) Medicare For All (there is currently an active discussion among Democrats on whether they should campaign hard for some type of single payer system or whether they should just keep presenting reforms to the current system. More Democrats are beginning to line up behind ideas like Medicare for All)
(3) Addressing the Middle and Lower Class "Crunch" (i.e. proposals to address income and wealth inequality in this country . . . tax reform, embracing a living wage, truly reversing bad trade policies, investing in job creation for younger Americans, etc.)
Yes. It's pie-in-the-sky, bad-math, leftist bull****.
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.
Do regular politically uninvolved voters have this information?
My side is winning. The economy is turning the corner. Jobs are returning.
Did you read the resources?
The economy turned the corner under Obama after the mess he inherited.
I read a few.
It is July of 2017. Get back with me regarding this in late October 2018.
Which ones did you read? We can have a detailed discussion about one of those.
What is the measuring rod for evaluating success v. failure in Democrats in 2018?
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.
Success is meeting or exceeding the historical average?
Yes.
Sound good or do you have another option to propose?
It's your metric. I just asked what it was.
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?No, actually this claim you made has been proven false. Extensive research doesn't back up this common claim made by those on the right.
Below a link to a site that provides ample resources that prove your claim to be false. Here is a quote from just one of the reports, from 2015:
"Economists cite several reasons why increases in the minimum wage, which raise employers’ cost, generally do not cost jobs. Increased pay adds money to workers’ pocketbooks and allows them to buy more goods and services, creating higher demand, which in turn requires hiring more workers. The higher wage may make it easier to attract applicants and results in less turnover of workers, lowering costs of employers.
Our examination of employment statistics in states found no evidence of employment loss in states that have increased the minimum wage and more evidence that suggests employment increases faster when there is an increase in the minimum wage."
https://www.businessforafairminimum...-minimum-wage-increases-do-not-cause-job-loss
So Obama's big losses indicate he was a shitty president?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.
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.
The "report" you quoted is from 2015. It's 2017.
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.Which ones did you read? We can have a detailed discussion about one of those
So Obama's big losses indicate he was a shitty president?
Which report are you referencing?
Below a link to a site that provides ample resources that prove your claim to be false. Here is a quote from just one of the reports, from 2015:
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?So every study and report given on that webpage has a progressive bias?
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.In 2014, Republicans had a +13. Not very successful per the historical average.