Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry if my analogy doesn't make sense to you. Lets try it this way-sudden large shocks can be damaging whereas slow changes arent. Go look at history, minimum wages that are raised slowly over time do not seem to cause any issues. Sudden massive changes have not been tried before, and might cause issues. Thats why they are often phased in.
Its not that I dont understand the analogy or that I do not understand what you are trying to depict with the analogy, its that the analogy is flawed. Please do not distort my words. You operate on the assumption that a wage hike is a shock, which means it hits once and it's over. This is inaccurate because the wage hike is still there, unless you are talking about a short-term wage hike, which you are not. The fact that you can't refute the criticism and do nothing more than try and explain it again tells me you are simply disagreeing with me because you do not want to be wrong. I digress, in your mind you cant possibly be wrong....
I assert it does not matter if you do it all at once or over a period of time....the result will be the same. The only difference is, its more noticeable when you do it all at once.
Its not that I dont understand the analogy or that I do not understand what you are trying to depict with the analogy, its that the analogy is flawed. Please do not distort my words. You operate on the assumption that a wage hike is a shock, which means it hits once and it's over. This is inaccurate because the wage hike is still there, unless you are talking about a short-term wage hike, which you are not. The fact that you can't refute the criticism and do nothing more than try and explain it again tells me you are simply disagreeing with me because you do not want to be wrong. I digress, in your mind you cant possibly be wrong....
Ahh...youre making an argument that has been completely disproved by history. For some reason I thought you were discussing the shock of a large increase...because your other argument is even more flawed I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you had a rational argument. I will try and not do that in the future.
Go look at historical wage increases. Point out the massive increase in inflation that was due to all of them.
In order to accomplish a 20.00 per job, which would balance out with inflation. We need to take back out industry from China and Mexico. Trump has it right on this subject.
So these of you want something for nothing, many should consider a Conservative View and what Trump has been saying for years!
Ahh...youre making an argument that has been completely disproved by history
No, I'm not. I'm attempting to articulate why your analogy is flawed. You can try and distort my criticism of your analogy any way you want but it wont change what I'm actually saying. It may help that I'm not talking about the results of the analogy, yet, but rather the analogy it self. I think that is where you are getting confused.
Quote:
For some reason I thought you were discussing the shock of a large increase...because your other argument is even more flawed I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you had a rational argument.
No, I'm not. I'm attempting to articulate why your analogy is flawed.
Quote:
I will try and not do that in the future.
You used water to illustrate wages and wanted to pretend the water and wages were not persistent and reflected that incorrect logic in your analogy. You should not use incorrect analogies in the future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
Go look at historical wage increases. Point out the massive increase in inflation that was due to all of them.
Who is talking about inflation? Again, irrelevant of the results (whether they are positive or negative) of the water/wages, its a persistent and cumulative effect. We can not discuss the results of the analogy until you accept the correct version. It is with out a doubt your analogy is flawed, its indisputable.
Last edited by billydaman; 02-28-2015 at 06:50 PM..
No, I'm not. I'm attempting to articulate why your analogy is flawed. You can try and distort my criticism of your analogy any way you want but it wont change what I'm actually saying. It may help that I'm not talking about the results of the analogy, yet, but rather the analogy it self. I think that is where you are getting confused.
No, I'm not. I'm attempting to articulate why your analogy is flawed.
You used water to illustrate wages and wanted to pretend the water and wages were not persistent and reflected that incorrect logic in your analogy. You should not use incorrect analogies in the future.
Who is talking about inflation? Again, irrelevant of the results (whether they are positive or negative) of the water/wages, its a persistent and cumulative effect. We can not discuss the results of the analogy until you accept the correct version. It is with out a doubt your analogy is flawed, its indisputable.
So now you aren't even using the inflation excuse? Now I definitely know you are against the minimum wage for no reason.
Its like OMG...he got me on that one...lets reframe his analogy to show why its wrong, latch on to that, and ignore that my whole premise is flawed.
Shrug. Some people don't want rational arguments, they just want to believe what they believe despite any evidence to the contrary.
You still do not understand that I'm attacking the methodology of how you and others draw your conclusion, do you? You've yet to address my criticism, you've only tried to rephrase and distort it into one arguing the results of a flawed analogy. I've tried two or three times to explain this to you and you continue to ignore or distort it. Your conclusion means jack **** unless you can validate the methodology, which you can not validate by simply restating it. You will not address your methodology so I really have no clue what else to say to you.
You still do not understand that I'm attacking the methodology of how you and others draw your conclusion, do you?
Sigh. My methodology for my conclusions is based upon historical results, and current data. I tried to provide a simple analogy since your conclusions near as I can tell are based upon simple comments made that you do not understand the complexity of.
Now I don't agree about making it $20, I think thats too much, but $15 is not unreasonable, nor is the $10 thats been suggested. And I base that on the past minimum wages, inflation, and productivity increases.
I don't base it off of what some politician says, nor what others tell me. I HAVE ran a business, in fact more then one. some succesful, some not. Im currently making 6 figures working for someone else. I have made minimum wage in the past, and even slept in my car. And...those are my personal experiences, and I understand how they may not be representative of the general experience. But being poor, and being middle class now gives me some perspective I have found.
Theres a ton of data on minimum wage, inflation, spending, etc. Why don't you use some of that to argue instead of spouting out opinions, and arguing about the methodology of a analogy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Now we getting silly!
