Color me unsurprised!

In the vein that reality always trump liberal illusions and fantasies about how things work in the real world, we get an article where a baffled MSM reports that if the minimum wage is jacked up, people will be laid off. I am not surprised that’s what is going to happen, and the article states so:

WASHINGTON (CBS DC) – A new study has found that 38 percent of employers will lay workers off if the minimum wage is increased as President Barack Obama has proposed.

Express Employment Professionals, the nation’s largest privately held staffing firm, surveyed 1,213 business owners and human resources professionals nationwide asking them if they would be impacted if the minimum wage was increased.

Roughly 54 percent of the study participants said they would reduce hiring and 65 percent said they would raise prices on their goods and services.

“There’s been a lot of debate and speculation about the impact of a minimum wage increase on job creation,” Bob Funk, CEO of Express, and a former chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City said in a press release. “At Express, we decided to go directly to the employers who make those decisions to find out what a minimum wage increase to $10.10 would mean for them specifically and for the economy in general.”

Nearly 213 of those surveyed pay their employees the current $7.25 minimum wage.

The problem with this idiotic belief that government should regulate pay rates, to overcome the unjust system that allows the people that actually take all the financial risks to make good on that so hated by the left, is that it ignores the basic concept that when you jack up the cost of labor, said cost will not be incurred by the perceived rich business owner, but by the customers buying the service or products. Remember, we are talking about jobs that take about a day of training, tops, and can be done by anyone with an IQ above what would qualify a person as a moron. That is why they are minimum wage jobs. At this insanely high new rate, I bet the employer is actually better off replacing drones with automation, reducing anywhere from 50-90% of the low skilled labor staff. Don’t you pretend otherwise, because the automation trend is already in high gear: ask bank tellers or cashiers.

I was discussing this very issue with a coworker that felt this $15 minimum wage was a great idea – because of social justice and all that – until I pointed out that the service he constantly complained about would now be done by fewer people, while that $1 menu item would probably cost him more, maybe as much as half-again as much. Blank stare. A glimpse of an idea, not thought through, of course, followed by a grin, and the idiotic retort: pass a law to prevent them from laying off anyone. Presto! I told him that wouldn’t be a problem at all, but now his morning coffee & bagel was going to cost him $20 instead of $5. Apply the same logic to any other product and service staffed by minimum wage earners or produced by an unionized workforce with their pay tied to the minimum wage (the real reason democrats want to raise the minimum wage, BTW). Businesses have to earn enough money to pay the people working there, and make a profit, after all, because otherwise there was no reason to be in business. His next retort, after the same cycle, was that profits should also be controlled. I kid you not. I pointed out that that thinking led to all pay being controlled, including his, and that it was very easy to make the argument that he was over paid for the value he was producing. That seemed to get his attention.

In the end his retort was that there had to be a way for people to be paid a decent “living wage”, the earnings of the boss to be controlled, as all good communists believe is socially just, and the cost of things to be kept low to boot. It’s the mentality inculcated by the rot Engels and Marx produced that defines labor as the only thing of real value and remains unable to distinguish between the value of the service provided or product produced. In that world a guy polishing turds all day long results in the same value as the efforts of a highly skilled surgeon. I told him that he needed to move to Fantasy Island, where all dreams can come true, regardless of how improbable and impossible they were in the real world. He didn’t like that either. The fact is that in the real world, things work a certain way, and no amount of stupid legislation, no matter how sugar coated it is to make the turd it is creating palatable, will ever change that. But that’s liberalism in a nutshell.

Comments are closed.

  1. Seattle Outcast

    And yet Obama was on TV just last night saying that raising the minimum wage would not affect small or medium sized employers at all.

    And whatever is going on in Obama’s head is, to him, a reality that cannot be argued against.

    Thumb up 8

  2. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 3

  3. Hal_10000

    CM, I think those are reasonable points, but I think that raising the minimum wage is just going to throw people out of work, not raise them up out of poverty. The problem is the job market — you have more people, especially college students, who basically have no job opportunities right now.

    Thumb up 3

  4. Xetrov

    Some interesting stuff in here
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2014/01/30/almost-everything-you-have-been-told-about-the-minimum-wage-is-false/

    According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics there are about 3.6 million workers at or below the minimum wage (you can be below legally under certain conditions). That is 2.5 percent of all workers and 1.5 percent of the population of potential workers. Within that small group, 31 percent are teenagers and 55 percent are 25 years old or younger. That leaves only about 1.1 percent of all workers over 25 and 0.8 percent of all Americans over 25 earning the minimum wage.

    Within that tiny group, most of these workers are not poor and are not trying to support a family on only their earnings. In fact, according to a recent study, 63 percent of workers who earn less than $9.50 per hour (well over the minimum wage of $7.25) are the second or third earner in their family and 43 percent of these workers live in households that earn over $50,000 per year. Thus, minimum wage earners are not a uniformly poor and struggling group; many are teenagers from middle class families and many more are sharing the burden of providing for their families, not carrying the load all by themselves.

    This group of workers is also shrinking. In 1980, 15 percent of hourly workers earned the minimum wage. Today that share is down to only 4.7 percent. Further, almost two-thirds of today’s minimum wage workers are in the service industry and nearly half work in food service.

    Yeah, I know: Bush

    ;-)

    Thumb up 11

  5. AlexInCT *

    You can’t make a liberal understand economics. Their “social justice” – a.k.a. need to control outcomes and people – bone will always get in the way of reality as CM proves. We are wasting an inordinately large amount of time discussing the non-issue aspect of this idea, while ignoring that the real reason the left wants to raise the minimum wage is to increase the pay of union workers with contracts tied to the minimum wage, so the union bosses can collect more money to give to democrats.

    Please don’t be fooled people: there is nothing fucking noble or intelligent about this idea Obama is pushing. In fact, it is a craven and downright despicable act of self-serving cronyism at its worst, masquerading as something else. The credentialed leftist elites don’t care about people’s plight unless they gain power from it. That is why they have focused on shit that made people beholden to them while causing irreparable harm to our economy.

    Don’t be fooled by the claim they care: they only care about their power and the preservation of said power. Buyer beware.

    Thumb up 2

  6. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 1

  7. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 1

  8. Xetrov

    Did you see the CBO also notes that raising the minimum would raise incomes overall by $2 billion?

    Obama is proposing a $2.85 increase per hour.

    $2.85 x 2080 = $5,928 increase for someone working a full year at minimum wage.

    $2,000,000,000/5,928 = 337,381 people helped as a result of increasing the minimum wage.

    Current population of the US is 313.9 Million people.

    313,900,000/337,381 = .11%

    So using your numbers, at MOST this measure is going to help .1% of the US Population. Yay for feel good measures that do jack shit to help and will instead hurt small business across this country.

    And if this measure is going to only help a maximum of 337,381 people, what’s going to happen to the other 24.7 million people your previous numbers claim are earning below $10.10? They all going to lose their jobs?

    Thumb up 13

  9. AlexInCT *

    Gotta love how mathematics can be such an anathema to such smugly expressed left-wing ideology…

    Why do you think they have worked so hard at making so many people not get math in the current educational curriculum, huh Iconoclast? The fewer people that can do math, the easier it is to sell these sort of job and economy destroying leftard bullshit policies that really are intended to line the pockets of the politicians that push them.

    Again, this proposal is about helping union bosses collect more money so they can give the democrats more money. There is nothing noble about pushing policies you know are going to negatively impact the economy and the job market, so you can help your campaign coffers and reelection. What a pile of shit.

    Thumb up 3

  10. CM

    Gotta love how mathematics can be such an anathema to such smugly expressed left-wing ideology…

    Except nobody here has expressed anything of the sort.
    Personally I’ve said many times that overall I think the Earned Income Tax Credit is probably preferable to increasing the minimum wage. But even that is just a public subsidy (businesses don’t have to pay as much because the tax-payer will take care of it). I think it’s way more complex than is ever expressed on this blog. But it appears that people on minimum wage or close to it are much less likely these days to just be students, or someone in their first-job (which is always the standard response here).

    Thumb up 0

  11. CM

    Gotta love how mathematics can be such an anathema to such smugly expressed left-wing ideology…

    Guess that’s why so many libtards got sucked in by unskewedpolls.com….remember that. Oh, no, hang on.
    I know SO has conveniently forgotten all his comments about how it was only one to trust. He would need to have forgotten it in order to accuse anyone of anything related to numbers.

    Thumb up 2

  12. Iconoclast

    Except nobody here has expressed anything of the sort.

    Oh, of course not…

    Personally I’ve said many times that overall I think the Earned Income Tax Credit is probably preferable to increasing the minimum wage.

    And I’ll state that not having the federal government dicking with the market, but actually staying within its Constitutional bounds, is preferable to both.

    But it appears that people on minimum wage or close to it are much less likely these days to just be students, or someone in their first-job (which is always the standard response here).

    But according to Xetrov’s cite:

    …most of these workers are not poor and are not trying to support a family on only their earnings. In fact, according to a recent study, 63 percent of workers who earn less than $9.50 per hour (well over the minimum wage of $7.25) are the second or third earner in their family and 43 percent of these workers live in households that earn over $50,000 per year. Thus, minimum wage earners are not a uniformly poor and struggling group; many are teenagers from middle class families and many more are sharing the burden of providing for their families, not carrying the load all by themselves.

    Which renders your point rather moot.

    BTW, why is mathematics in italics?

    To emphasize the mundane, thereby illustrating the disconnect between mundane reality and pie-in-the-sky ideology. Must everything be explained to you?

    Guess that’s why so many libtards got sucked in by unskewedpolls.com….remember that.

    Sure, I’ll “remember that” just as soon as you explain the relationship between “mathematics” and “polling”…

    Thumb up 9

  13. Seattle Outcast

    “The only one to trust”

    Really? Go find where I used those exact words.

    I think perhaps that, once again, you’re reading comprehension skills are inadequate….

    Thumb up 3

  14. CM

    Oh, of course not…

    Oh I get it. You used italics, so it MUST be true. Case closed.

    And I’ll state that not having the federal government dicking with the market, but actually staying within its Constitutional bounds, is preferable to both.

    I’d agree with that. Forcing companies to do something or subsidising them so they can pay less should really be avoided.

    Which renders your point rather moot.

    So the information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics are just wrong? How do you get to just reject that?

    To emphasize the mundane, thereby illustrating the disconnect between mundane reality and pie-in-the-sky ideology.

    Which mathematics in this discussion prompted your “Gotta love how mathematics can be such an anathema to such smugly expressed left-wing ideology…”

    Must everything be explained to you?

    Not usually, no. But thanks for the reminder that it’s pointless to politely request for elaboration though.

    Sure, I’ll “remember that” just as soon as you explain the relationship between “mathematics” and “polling”…

    They ‘unskewed’ the regular polls by re-weighting the sample to match what they believed the electorate would look like. But yeah, no statistical analysis involved in that I guess….
    Or do you not consider statistical analysis to involve mathematics? Is this today’s pedantic flavour?

    Anyway, looks like Seattle’s hero has moved onto bigger and better things. Still right up Seattle’s alley though.
    http://wonkette.com/530395/unskewed-polls-guy-figures-that-since-obama-is-gay-hes-probably-not-a-muslim

    Really? Go find where I used those exact words.

    Hahahahahahaha, that’s brilliant. Sure mate, right after you back up ANY of the million accusations you’ve made against me. You being the Queen of Unsupported Accusation.

    Thumb up 0

  15. CM

    You can find re-weighted, and generally more accurate, poll date here: UnSkewed Polls

    CW will now denounce the more accurate data as not sucking enough Obama cock to show him as a predestined winner….

    Since you don’t even understand basic stats, I’m certainly not going to waste my time attempting to explain the advanced stuff to you.

    Go pick up a fucking textbook and work a few hundred problems before posting about polls again.

    http://right-thinking.com/2012/09/21/mitts-2011-returns/

    aka the only one to trust….

    Rather apt comment from you in that thread a little further down:

    Your posting history – or did you think we just forget?

    Indeed.

    And:

    You’re a fucking joke, dude, just hang it up already.

    Well that applies to one of us, sure.

    And:

    Poor, poor, CM, still beating the discredited dead horse and muttering, “sure, it’ll make it another five miles…..”

    I sure am beating on this horse, but only because you won’t even acknowledge that you were wrong. Most reasonable people would have learnt something from it rather than living in flat-out denial. Hang on – you do realise that Romney lost, and the polls weren’t skewed at all, right?

    Now where did I suggest you should all move to Somalia because it’s a right-wing paradise?

    Thumb up 3

  16. blameme

    CM, for the fucking love of God, can you not change the subject and stick to the topic at hand?

    Here’s a poll vote – I hate reading comments here 97% of the time.

    I have a few moments every day to scan through this site. I look at which topics have the most responses and HOPE that maybe, just maybe there is a decent discussion going on.

    Nope. Without fail it becomes a shit slinging contest halfway through.

    The topic of the impact of raising the minimum wage is an interesting one. But, now we are talking about the “Great Poll Debate” of last year.

    Why? Holy hell.

    Thumb up 7

  17. CM

    CM, for the fucking love of God, can you not change the subject and stick to the topic at hand?

    Yeah good one. Go back and see what happened again.

    Here’s a poll vote – I hate reading comments here 97% of the time.

    97% of the words on this blog are a combination of the same 60 key words from Alex.

    I have a few moments every day to scan through this site. I look at which topics have the most responses and HOPE that maybe, just maybe there is a decent discussion going on.

    You’re in the wrong place for sure. Not possible here. See Alex, Seattle Outcast and Iconoclast if you have an issue with that.

    Nope. Without fail it becomes a shit slinging contest halfway through.

    Shit isn’t it. Shit should only be allowed to be slung in one direction right?
    Of course when it doesn’t there are 2 comments, and if Alex wasn’t the main author one will be from him saying the same thing he’s said 3564574 times, using the same word salad. And one will be Seattle Outcast telling everyone what I’m about to come and say even though he never says anything remotely like anything I’ve ever said, or just making yet another nonsense allegation. But I assume you’ve never once complained about that….?

    The topic of the impact of raising the minimum wage is an interesting one. But, now we are talking about the “Great Poll Debate” of last year.

    It’s apparently only interesting if the discussion is 100% consistent with an ideological mantra, and ensuring that anything else other than that mantra is made out to be some direct opposite mantra. As per usual. DUMB LIBTARDS DON’T KNOW ABOUT MATHEMATICS!! For god’s sake.
    I thought I posted some interesting points from Nate Silver’s blog. It got 15 downvotes. Xetrov’s one with contrasting interesting info go 10 upvotes.

    Why? Holy hell.

    Possibly because ideologues can only think in ideological terms and assume that anyone who dares to disagree with anything they say must immediately be an ideologue at the opposite extreme. Same old then. But you go ahead and blame me, that’s cool. Whatever gets you through.

    Bush’s fault. And – you’re a racist. ;-)

    That’s as good as anything else on this page. What an embarrassment.

    Thumb up 3

  18. Seattle Outcast

    “Now where did I suggest you should all move to Somalia because it’s a right-wing paradise?”

    Right here, at this blog.

    I notice you took excessive liberties in interpreting what I actually posted, but then, you’re an idiot.

    Thumb up 1

  19. Seattle Outcast

    Wonkette? Fucking for real?

    I’d trust a pile of dog shit to actually provide better data….

    Keep rocking the stupid, CM, it’s what you’re actually good at…

    Thumb up 2

  20. Poosh

    It’s not the wage, it’s the buying power duh.

    And who, pray tell, devalues the currency?

    Who, pray tell, heaps hidden taxes on goods and services?

    I’m sure some of these business owners are indeed pieces of shit for paying their workers so little – but a greater number really are working on the line, I’d wager.

    Thumb up 4

  21. richtaylor365

    I thought I posted some interesting points from Nate Silver’s blog. It got 15 downvotes. Xetrov’s one with contrasting interesting info go 10 upvotes.

    Surely you are astute enough to understand the voting system, you got pounded because of your snarky finish, Xetrov got rewarded because of his clever retort to your snarky finish. The statistics within each post were equally compelling, but you lost style points.

    Possibly because ideologues can only think in ideological terms and assume that anyone who dares to disagree with anything they say must immediately be an ideologue at the opposite extreme. Same old then.

    Lazy, lazy, oh, and did I say lazy?

    Diminishing any argument with ,” Since you are an ideologue, dogmatic and uncompromising, you lack the ability and willingness to consider a different point of view”, is exactly like ,”I’d explain it to you but you are too stupid to understand it”, the kind of stuff Salanger used to pull here. It is surrendering because you lack the conviction of your argument, which might say something about its content.

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, complaining about this blog because it is populated by right leaning thinkers is like going to an NRA convention and thinking ,”Holy smokes, all these folks are gun nuts”.

    Thumb up 8

  22. CM

    Right here, at this blog.

    As you said yourself: “Really? Go find where I used those exact words.”
    Or, anything remotely similar (I’m not going to be so pedantic).
    Unless you want to demonstrate yet again what a massive hypocrite you are.

    I notice you took excessive liberties in interpreting what I actually posted, but then, you’re an idiot.

    I’d like to see you try and explain how I took any sort of liberties. It’s all right there. I found it within 30 seconds.

    Wonkette? Fucking for real?

    I’d trust a pile of dog shit to actually provide better data….

    Keep rocking the stupid, CM, it’s what you’re actually good at…

    Just brilliant. Stupid would be thinking I linked to something to provide data, as opposed to mock you. Did you not even look at it before posting?
    But then you did place all your trust in unskewedpolls…so your trust doesn’t seem to mean a hell of a lot….;-)

    Thumb up 5

  23. Iconoclast

    Oh I get it. You used italics, so it MUST be true. Case closed.

    Evidently, you don’t “get it” at all. Your post of March 21, 2014 5:06 PM, did indeed include a couple of smugly-expressed snarky follow-ups to your “raise incomes overall by $2 billion” chest-thump, and Xetrov did indeed use simple mathematics to deconstruct that 2 billion dollar figure, thereby illustrating what it really meant in terms of how many people actually benefited. That you would respond with knee-jerk denial is not at all surprising. Nor is your snarkiness above. wherein you try to implicitly deny your knee-jerk denial.

    So the information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics are just wrong? How do you get to just reject that?

    You are aware that “moot” =/= “wrong”, I hope. Or perhaps, “So the information from the study Xetrov’s cite referenced is just wrong? How do you get to just reject that?”

    Which mathematics in this discussion prompted your “Gotta love how mathematics can be such an anathema to such smugly expressed left-wing ideology…”

    Are you really this dense? Really?

    Must everything be explained to you?

    Not usually,

    What a crock — I find myself having to explain the mechanics of English grammar to you with apalling regularity. Just above, you asked “which mathematics in this discussion” prompted me, as if there was so much to choose from, thereby demanding yet more explanation. Which I refused to give, in this case.

    But thanks for the reminder that it’s pointless to politely request for elaboration though.

    “Polite” my ass. You’re just being deliberately dense and obtuse. Nothing “polite” about it.

    But yeah, no statistical analysis involved in that I guess…

    See wht I mean? I challenge you to explain the relationship between mathematics and polling, and you respond with snarks, while lamenting the alleged poor quality of discourse on this blog from the other side of your mouth.

    Or do you not consider statistical analysis to involve mathematics? Is this today’s pedantic flavour?

    More of the same. Tedious, and ironic, considering your own pedantry.

    The only point I was trying to make is that there is a difference between collecting data and analyzing it. Taking a poll is the former, not the latter.

    Thumb up 9

  24. Iconoclast

    Possibly because ideologues can only think in ideological terms and assume that anyone who dares to disagree with anything they say must immediately be an ideologue at the opposite extreme.

    This, coming from someone who routinely accuses us of being “extreme” “ideologues”, or at the very least, regularly says the same about articles we cite to support our arguments.

    Thumb up 5

  25. Seattle Outcast

    Not to mention that if you say “X”, CM promptly tries to claim that you really said “L”, not understanding that there is a gulf between them the size of the Pacific.

    Can we go back to not feeding the troll?

    Hot! Thumb up 3

  26. Argive

    Not to mention that if you say “X”, CM promptly tries to claim that you really said “L”, not understanding that there is a gulf between them the size of the Pacific.

    Then what did you mean? I frequently lurk on this blog and I’ve noticed that every time someone (usually CM) brings up the whole unskewed polls nonsense, you dodge away from just admitting that Chambers’ analysis was faulty, which it clearly was. Looking back on that comment thread, you never did explain why you thought Chambers’ re-weighted polls were more accurate, other than some stuff about how the other polls were horribly biased and CM should go read a stats textbook.

    Thumb up 2

  27. CM

    Surely you are astute enough to understand the voting system, you got pounded because of your snarky finish, Xetrov got rewarded because of his clever retort to your snarky finish. The statistics within each post were equally compelling, but you lost style points.

    Well then that is truly pathetic, particularly as my ‘finish’ is exactly the ‘argument’ that Alex makes on a regular basis. But I don’t for a second believe that most here think the stats in each were equally compelling. For example Iconoclast took the opportunity to smugly state: “Gotta love how mathematics can be such an anathema to such smugly expressed left-wing ideology…” and 12 people liked it. Now that’s compelling, particularly as what he said was meaningless, as no mathematics had been shown to be wrong, and nobody was expressing left-wing ideology (smugly or otherwise). But no, lowest common denominator nonsense always wins here so long as it’s the correct flavour.

    Diminishing any argument with ,” Since you are an ideologue, dogmatic and uncompromising, you lack the ability and willingness to consider a different point of view”, is exactly like ,”I’d explain it to you but you are too stupid to understand it”, the kind of stuff Salanger used to pull here. It is surrendering because you lack the conviction of your argument, which might say something about its content.

    Why should an ideologue not be called an ideologue when it’s so obviously exhibited, and that’s the obvious reason why they’re unable to engage like a grown-up? It makes complete sense, is evidenced by what is said (and made up), and isn’t contradicted by anything.

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, complaining about this blog because it is populated by right leaning thinkers is like going to an NRA convention and thinking ,”Holy smokes, all these folks are gun nuts”.

    I’ve never had a problem with this blog being populated by right leaning thinkers. My issue is that some have no personal standards and lowest common denominator shit is preferred. You presumably don’t have to be a nut or act like you’re in elementary school all the time to be right-leaning.

    Thumb up 2

  28. Seattle Outcast

    you never did explain why you thought Chambers’ re-weighted polls were more accurate, other than some stuff about how the other polls were horribly biased and CM should go read a stats textbook.

    To start with, most of the polling done by various news outlets fail in the initial process of obtaining a meaningful random sample, and/or tend to use leading questions. You’ll go over their raw data and see that they polled “likely voters”, or people in specific area codes, or people called at home during normal work hours – these sorts of groups are weighted in obvious ways, and their margin of error is actually larger than the 3% they tout, frequently by a great amount. Additionally, professional polling groups can and will design a poll to give you a predetermined outcome – I’ve personally seen several of them.

    Unskewed Polls appeared to be taking that sort of weighting into account and mathematically recalculating the poll based on what was known about the groupings. For example, calling people at home during normal business hours will get you responses from people that are older because they are also the group that tends to still have a land line, and are at home during the day. They vote differently than people in the NYC area code, and “likely voters” is meaningless for the most part – it’s whatever the polling group decides it is.

    As for CM and stats, he’s yet to even prove that he understands how poll accuracy is determined and why polling sizes don’t need to be very large. Hell, he’s proven time and again that he doesn’t even understand basic data analysis, correlation, cause, or any conclusion he isn’t led by his nose to. Until he picks up a book on introductory probability and statistics and can work a simple design of experiments problem (and actually understand the answer), expecting him to grasp what information is actually telling him is a waste of time. Personally, I don’t want to spend a year tutoring a complete asshole that’s already decided in favor of the answer that is at odds with reality.

    Thumb up 1

  29. CM

    Evidently, you don’t “get it” at all. Your post of March 21, 2014 5:06 PM, did indeed include a couple of smugly-expressed snarky follow-ups to your “raise incomes overall by $2 billion” chest-thump

    That post was:

    Maybe Hal. Did you see the CBO also notes that raising the minimum would raise incomes overall by $2 billion?
    Increasing the minimum wage is an alternative to the public subsidising businesses via the Earned Income Tax Credit or other tax/payment programs. Under Bush and Republicans and Fox News had no issue with raising it at all. This was before 2007 of course, prior to them going off the deep end.

    For a start, how on earth was that a ‘chest thump’? I stated it without any editorial comment. What a ludicrous thing to claim. That Bush and Fox News had no issue with minimum wage increases was also set out as a matter of fact. That both the GOP and Fox News have veered off somewhere else since then is hardly in much dispute. So it seems that this comes down me calling it “the deep end”.
    And yet even then, that’s even remotely explain why you used italics, which was the question I asked.
    Presumably we’re now going to get into stupid pedantic nonsense as per usual.

    and Xetrov did indeed use simple mathematics to deconstruct that 2 billion dollar figure, thereby illustrating what it really meant in terms of how many people actually benefited.

    Only if you accept that his “simple mathematics” explains or accounts for everything, which I certainly don’t. The $2 billion includes the loss of income through jobs disappearing. Of course there is also the issue of that $2 billion going right back into the sharp end of the economy, providing more jobs.
    But no, it apparently MUST all be simple.

    That you would respond with knee-jerk denial is not at all surprising.

    Ah here we go. YAWN. Where was my ‘knee-jerk denial’? I calmly and politely questioned what you said, not what Xetrov posted. There was nothing even close to a denial, let alone in a knee-jerk manner. Yet again you seem to just be saying that randomly like it’s meant to be meaningful.

    Nor is your snarkiness above. wherein you try to implicitly deny your knee-jerk denial.

    Says the guy who’s opening comment is 100% ‘LIBS ARE TARDS’ snark.
    If you ever come across a mirror, you should definitely have a good look in it.

    You are aware that “moot” =/= “wrong”, I hope. Or perhaps, “So the information from the study Xetrov’s cite referenced is just wrong? How do you get to just reject that?”

    I didn’t reject it. I didn’t say his argument was moot because of the information in my post.

    Are you really this dense? Really?

    I could say the same about you, if you believe that Xetrov’s simple mathematics provides a complete picture of what raising the minimum wage means. If you think that 337,381 people are helped by raising the minimum wage, because of that simple mathematics, then you certainly are the dense one.

    What a crock — I find myself having to explain the mechanics of English grammar to you with apalling regularity.

    I think you’ll find that it’s spelt ‘appalling’.
    (That was a joke – try and have a laugh for once)
    Anyway, I have not had that issue with many other people in my entire life, so I suspect the issue is yours. In our pedantic explorations you never seem to be able to explain why you wrote what you did, or how you read such meaning into what I wrote.

    Just above, you asked “which mathematics in this discussion” prompted me, as if there was so much to choose from, thereby demanding yet more explanation. Which I refused to give, in this case.

    I sought clarification to make sure I knew what you meant. I didn’t want to assume that you’d placed so much weight on Xetrov’s very simple cherry-picked ‘explanation’. I couldn’t quite believe that you’d take that and make such a profound declaration. So I thought I’d give you the benefit of the doubt and ask. But yeah then we get Seattle Outcast coming in with his trolling (which blameme somehow fails to pick up on ), clearly itching to get involved in the same old lazy ‘bash the libtard’ game.

    Which I refused to give, in this case.

    Yeah, awesome.

    “Polite” my ass. You’re just being deliberately dense and obtuse. Nothing “polite” about it.

    Only you could see that in my two responses to your snarky post. But then, as I’ve said before, if I said ‘Good Morning’ you’d see it as ‘Fuck You’. This yet another example.

    See wht I mean?

    Sorry but my responses now don’t make my initial responses to your first comment snarky or impolite. You chose to come out of the gate like this.

    I challenge you to explain the relationship between mathematics and polling, and you respond with snarks, while lamenting the alleged poor quality of discourse on this blog from the other side of your mouth. The only point I was trying to make is that there is a difference between collecting data and analyzing it. Taking a poll is the former, not the latter.

    Ok well the whole point of unskewedpolls was their analysing of polling data and re-weighting it to make it look their their favoured candidate was going to win. Entirely by the use of mathematics. For people who want to see what they want to believe.
    Not sure how your point changes anything.

    This, coming from someone who routinely accuses us of being “extreme” “ideologues”, or at the very least, regularly says the same about articles we cite to support our arguments.

    The rather large significant difference being that I don’t say such ideological extreme things like “Gotta love how mathematics can be such an anathema to such smugly expressed left-wing ideology…”.
    I sometimes question specific statements in articles, sure, although there is nothing extreme or ideological about that. But most often NOTHING is cited to support a claim or argument, it’s quite often based on ‘accepted wisdom’. Also I’m not putting up anything from the extreme left to counter whatever it is. Questioning something because no evidence is provided, or the evidence provided is found to be dubious isn’t even remotely extreme or consistent with extreme ideology.

    Thumb up 0

  30. CM

    That’s nice Seattle, but that was all debunked at the time and yet you just stuck your finger in your ears (no response at all to Hal’s post in that thread and you weren’t able to explain the points I made either). I provoided the link, anyone can see that for themselves. Alex also swallowed the same cool-aid, naturally and predictably. You’ll both latch on and accept ANYTHING that supports your reality, no matter how silly it is. Look at the two of you on climate science….that’s just embarrassing.

    As for CM and stats, he’s yet to even prove that he understands how poll accuracy is determined and why polling sizes don’t need to be very large.

    I did exactly that right here:
    http://right-thinking.com/2014/01/15/did-this-disciple-just-let-the-cat-out-of-the-bag/
    And yet I’ve never done anything to the contrary. If I have, provide the evidence. Put up or shut up.

    Hell, he’s proven time and again that he doesn’t even understand basic data analysis, correlation, cause, or any conclusion he isn’t led by his nose to.

    Again, this is such an unfounded lazy accusation (your specialty). Again, like with the whole Somalia thing, put up or shut up.

    Until he picks up a book on introductory probability and statistics and can work a simple design of experiments problem (and actually understand the answer), expecting him to grasp what information is actually telling him is a waste of time.

    Again, when did I misunderstand probability and statistics? Put up or shut up.

    >Personally, I don’t want to spend a year tutoring a complete asshole that’s already decided in favor of the answer that is at odds with reality.</blockquote

    That's ok, I wouldn't want you to tutor me or anyone else in anything anyway.
    Unskewedpolls were at odds with reality. And yet you not only promoted it, you did so extremely arrogantly, You'd already decided, despite the fact that nobody else treated them seriously for good reason (i,e, you would rather stick your fingers in your ears than face reality).

    Thumb up 2

  31. Iconoclast

    Why should an ideologue not be called an ideologue when it’s so obviously exhibited, and that’s the obvious reason why they’re unable to engage like a grown-up? It makes complete sense, is evidenced by what is said (and made up), and isn’t contradicted by anything.

    Why should a deliberately dense and obtuse person not be called a deliberately dense and obtuse person when it’s so obviously exhibited, and that’s the obvious reason why they’re unable to engage like a grown-up? It makes complete sense, is evidenced by what is said (and made up), and isn’t contradicted by anything.

    For a start, how on earth was that a ‘chest thump’?

    You seem to be in favor of government intrusion as a general rule. You lament a perceived gap in incomes between “rich” and “poor”. Given that, the 2 billion dollar income increase can easily appear to be a talking point worth bragging on. No “editorial comment” is needed for such to be the case.

    Presumably we’re now going to get into stupid pedantic nonsense as per usual.

    Cool, you get to dismiss any explanation I may give as “stupid pedantic nonsense” a priori. Awesome.

    The $2 billion includes the loss of income through jobs disappearing.

    Kindly provide some evidence to back this claim up.

    But no, it apparently MUST all be simple.

    “What a ludicrous thing to claim.”

    No, I never said anything “must” be simple, only that the mathematics Xetrov employed were indeed simple. But sure, morphing that into “MUST all be simple” makes perfect sense — no pedantry or condescension or distortion or misrepresentation there. Nope. No siree Bob.

    Where was my ‘knee-jerk denial’?

    Except nobody here has expressed anything of the sort.

    CM, March 23, 2014 7:24 PM

    So here is where you get to deny your denial…

    There was nothing even close to a denial, let alone in a knee-jerk manner.

    Oh, you’ve already denied your denial…

    Says the guy who’s opening comment is 100% ‘LIBS ARE TARDS’ snark.

    Oooh, the burn! I’m not the one who incessantly gripes about the level of discourse here.

    I could say the same about you, if you believe that Xetrov’s simple mathematics provides a complete picture of what raising the minimum wage means.

    I never claimed it provided “a ‘complete’ picture” of anything, but then, simply dropping the 2 billion dollar figure likewise doesn’t “provide a complete picture” of anything, either, does it? Yet you initially seemed to think it should. The “simple mathematics” only illustrates why it, in fact, doesn’t provide a compete picture.

    If you think that 337,381 people are helped by raising the minimum wage, because of that simple mathematics, then you certainly are the dense one.

    The 337,381 itself isn’t the issue, but it isn’t surprising that you would pedantically try to make it the issue. No, the issue is that the 2 billion dollar figure itself isn’t really meaningful, and that it only takes “simple mathematics” to illustrate that.

    Note that I said “illustrate”. Not “prove”.

    The point of Xetrov’s exercise was simply to show how meaningless it can be to just drop a figure like 2 billion, as if that figure proved anything.

    That you don’t get the point comes as no surprise at all.

    Anyway, I have not had that issue with many other people in my entire life, so I suspect the issue is yours.

    Oh, of course it’s all my fault. That should have been a given. How silly of me to not realize that up front.

    The rather large significant difference being that I don’t say such ideological extreme things like “Gotta love how mathematics can be such an anathema to such smugly expressed left-wing ideology…”.

    How on Earth is that “ideologically extreme”? “What a ludicrous thing to claim.”

    If I had stated that “simple mathematics always is an anathema” or something similar, you might have a case, but I only observed that it can be an anathema. Not is, but can be. If you find that to be “extreme”, well, that’s on you.

    But there I go, being “pedantic” again, having to explain English to you.

    Again.

    Thumb up 4

  32. Iconoclast
    Just above, you asked “which mathematics in this discussion” prompted me, as if there was so much to choose from, thereby demanding yet more explanation. Which I refused to give, in this case.

    Yeah, awesome.

    Ain’t it? I mean, just how many posts in this thread even contain mathematics? Hmmm? Why should I have to “explain” the blatantly obvious? And what kind of utter tool demands explanations of the blatantly obvious?

    Yeah, I know, Bush. And Fox News.

    Thumb up 5

  33. Iconoclast

    In our pedantic explorations you never seem to be able to explain why you wrote what you did, or how you read such meaning into what I wrote.

    On the contrary, I provide explanations ad nauseam, because your demands for such occur ad nauseam. That you don’t get my explanations, for whatever obtuse reason, is ultimately incosequential.

    But yeah, it’s all my fault.

    Thumb up 5

  34. CM

    1. Left-wing ideology was not smugly expressed by me or anyone else in this thread. I was certainly a little surprised by the CBO’s forecast that the overall pie gets bigger. It was not designed to prove anything or paint a complete picture (i,e, represent something like being “anathema to such smugly expressed left-wing ideology”). It jumped out at me as something interesting. I didn’t even remotely suggest or imply a level of meaning.
    2. Xetrov’s mathematics wasn’t and isn’t anathema to anyone, including me or my politics. Yet even if left-wing ideology had been smugly expressed (which, again, is wasn’t), it still wouldn’t be, because the figure hasn’t been used properly. For a start, the increased earnings for low-wage workers resulting from the higher minimum wage would actually total $31 billion, by CBO’s estimate. Once the increases and decreases in income for all workers are taken into account, overall real income would rise by $2 billion.http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44995
    3. For the above reasons I queried what you were referring to, because it didn’t make sense to me.
    4. No I’m not in favour of “government intrusion as a general rule”. I don’t “lament a perceived gap in incomes, I’m interested in what it will mean for a sustainable economy if it continues.

    Kindly provide some evidence to back this claim up.

    Once the increases and decreases in income for all workers are taken into account, overall real income would rise by $2 billion.

    (same source as above)

    5. I don’t mind people asking for clarification. I’d much rather people do that than getting all shitty based on a misunderstanding.

    As Xetrov would say, peace out.

    Thumb up 1

  35. Iconoclast

    Xetrov’s mathematics wasn’t and isn’t anathema to anyone, including me or my politics. Yet even if left-wing ideology had been smugly expressed (which, again, is wasn’t), it still wouldn’t be, because the figure hasn’t been used properly. For a start, the increased earnings for low-wage workers resulting from the higher minimum wage would actually total $31 billion, by CBO’s estimate. Once the increases and decreases in income for all workers are taken into account, overall real income would rise by $2 billion.

    None of that was stipulated up front; it was stipulated “that raising the minimum would raise incomes overall by $2 billion”. Nothing more. So it’s hardly Xetrov’s fault if “figure hasn’t been used properly”. No, the fault lies elsewhere, and there was no reason to expect the original 2 billion dollar figure to represent anything other than what was originally stipulated. This can be seen as moving goal posts, and renders many, if not most of your criticisms moot.

    Thumb up 4

  36. Iconoclast

    For a start, the increased earnings for low-wage workers resulting from the higher minimum wage would actually total $31 billion, by CBO’s estimate. Once the increases and decreases in income for all workers are taken into account, overall real income would rise by $2 billion.

    Or, another way of looking at it, when decreases in income for workers are taken into account, those decreases total $29 billion, which is an order of magnitude greater than the overall increase of $2 billion.

    Thumb up 2