Retards are worth $2 an hour

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by busigator96, Jan 30, 2014.

  1. QGator2414
    Offline

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    12,437
    Likes Received:
    130
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Ocala
    Ratings Received:
    +433
    That said do you think someone with a $30K pension "needs" SS to live comfortably?

    Again. It may not be the comfort they want or desire but can they get by with reasonable comfort?
  2. gatorev12
    Offline

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,468
    Likes Received:
    259
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,258
    Have you read any of the works I cited?
  3. gatorev12
    Offline

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,468
    Likes Received:
    259
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,258
    You do realize that words have multiple meanings, correct? And can be used differently in a sentence, right?

    You're right, if you can't understand the above, then I'm not sure how fruitful any discussion will be.
  4. vertigo0923
    Offline

    vertigo0923 night owl mod VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    37,423
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    sec country
    Ratings Received:
    +4,805
    yes. words CAN have different meanings, obviously. but in your particular case, they don't.
    you can keep arguing this one, or you can probably let it go. because you're ....incorrect.....
    your original sentence, using 'purpose' and 'function'. those words are synonymous, as used in that sentence. if not, why don't you find a synonym for one of those words, that hasn't got the same definition? re-write it. i don't know how you can.

    read your studies? skimmed at most. know why? because anyone can produce 'studies' to make their point.
    hold on. here's some for you:

    Increasing the minimum wage might not lead your local McDonald's to fire its cashiers. But it might mean that a 5 Guys will one day replace it.

    That's the upshot of a new working paper from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago that puts an intriguing twist on the age-old minimum wage debate. Most studies on the subject tend to focus on jobs (and, as regular readers of this site may know by now, those studies often come to wildly different conclusions). But this time around, researchers Daniel Aaronson, Eric French, and Isaac Sorkin also decided to look at what happened to the fast-food restaurants themselves in three states—Illinois, California, and New Jersey—after they raised wages.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/business...-mcdonalds-killer-not-a-mcjobs-killer/283638/


    here's some nobel economists for you.

    http://www.businessweek.com/article...bel-economists-endorse-10-dot-10-minimum-wage

    point of this exercise? there are liberal and there are conservative economists, apparently.
    with differing points of view. much like ourselves.
    i'm not going to say 'gee rev, you're RIGHT!!!!! i see the light! the economist's reports that i've been reading are stupid!!! how could i not see that before?'

    not gonna happen.
    i'd say for every study, there's another study to contradict it. wouldn't you?
    • Like Like x 1
  5. mdgator05
    Offline

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    6,269
    Likes Received:
    119
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +446
    Still nothing from peer reviewed studies. Books are not peer reviewed, which leads to many people making claims in them that they would never make in a peer reviewed article as it would be rejected. I provided you an actual meta-analysis that reviewed the literature. So you don't need to take those two economists words for what the literature says. You can actually mathematically analyze the evidence and evaluate that analysis. So their non-peer reviewed opinion is not a good counter to empirical evidence from a meta-analysis. Perhaps you could actually provide the quantitative evidence instead of just showing that two economists gave their opinion of what the literature says.

    If you would like me to see this "macro" with empirical evidence, perhaps you could provide the results and some citations of the studies. I would be more than happy to read them. If you need help, google scholar is a good place to start.

    BTW, you are aware that Friedman isn't exactly "the latest" thought in the field, considering it came from 1975, over a decade before Card and Kreuger even began working on the topic, right? I would imagine you would have difficulty finding an academic field that has not significantly progressed in the prior 40 years. Economics is certainly not one in which you should be citing thoughts from 1975 (with no empirical evidence and just mathematical theory as a basis) as some sort of authority on the topic.

    I am not pretending a logical fallacy, you committed a fairly serious one. Whether you did so in pursuit of a correct argument or not is besides the point. You attempted to appeal to authority. That is always a logical fallacy. Sorry that you don't appreciate being called out on it. But it is. Now if you would like to find actual counters to Card and Kreuger, or better yet the methodologically improved version of their paper that I provided earlier, I would be willing to read it. However, that would require empirical evidence, not just opinion. You have not done that yet.
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,153
    Likes Received:
    4,057
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +5,920
    It certainly depends in part on where folks live, how much savings they have, property taxes etc... among other factors, though I don't doubt that some could live pretty decently. On the other, I do have doubts about just how many, say as a percentage of all elderly could do it without running into problems that can really affect quality of life especially since unlike younger folk, their options in reacting to changes affecting them tend to be much more limited.
    • Like Like x 1
  7. QGator2414
    Offline

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    12,437
    Likes Received:
    130
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Ocala
    Ratings Received:
    +433
    While we are not even discussing Medicare as that is a whole separate issue...

    I have a hard time believing $30K a year for a person/couple (most likely no dependents) cannot support an adequate shelter and food plus a few extras. Sure some areas have a higher costs. If one wants to give up some extras to live in an area like that then great.

    But the point is we have a perverted idea of what we "need"... :)
  8. vertigo0923
    Offline

    vertigo0923 night owl mod VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    37,423
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    sec country
    Ratings Received:
    +4,805
    the elderly will have to deal with healthcare costs.
    here's the medicare costs.
    you have a 147 deductible, you have $104 in monthly premiums (note: these can be higher)
    keep in mind that medicare only covers 80%, so then each elderly person is responsible for their coinsurance.
    unless they have a secondary insurance, which means that a lot of that coinsurance left over from medicare is paid by the secondary.
    of course that means you also have premiums due for that secondary.
    think about the possibility of having just one surgery in a given year, on that $20k annual amount.
    you may be left with a cardboard box.
  9. vertigo0923
    Offline

    vertigo0923 night owl mod VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    37,423
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    sec country
    Ratings Received:
    +4,805
    but you've adjusted your original figure upwards to the tune of $10k.
  10. QGator2414
    Offline

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    12,437
    Likes Received:
    130
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Ocala
    Ratings Received:
    +433
    Actually I did not adjust it up. I just went up for the sake of compromise in the discussion with jdr...

    I honestly think it should/could go down from $20K (if you read my comment/question to jdr using $30K). And if one gets nailed with medical bills and cannot afford it I have no issues with a "safety net". My only beef is it should be run by the states...
  11. vertigo0923
    Offline

    vertigo0923 night owl mod VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    37,423
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    sec country
    Ratings Received:
    +4,805
    well then, no compromise.
    $20k annually.
    after reading just the costs associated with medicare, do you still hold that thought?
    because, you WILL get nailed with those sorts of bills. if you're over 65. its just a matter of 'when'
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2014
  12. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,153
    Likes Received:
    4,057
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +5,920
    Well, I am for some type of universal health care so if that came around and we could be done with these different/separate programs.

    30k though is not a heck of a lot of money so even minor events can really strain budgets--as many are on fixed incomes, which is exactly why social security is beneficial. As far as need, I agree, to a considerable extent it has been perverted. But again, not simply by government, but by capitalism, which exerts an enormous influence in shaping our values as a society, and in creating "need." We put a preeminence on wealth over almost all other values, as a measure of success, so to the degree that government policy reflects such a perversion, it's in large part because it's a manifestation of the predominance of a capitalist mindset and a reaction to it.
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2014
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. vertigo0923
    Offline

    vertigo0923 night owl mod VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    37,423
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    sec country
    Ratings Received:
    +4,805
    ditto on that universal healthcare,
    • Like Like x 1
  14. vertigo0923
    Offline

    vertigo0923 night owl mod VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    37,423
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    sec country
    Ratings Received:
    +4,805
    South Dakota Average Charges for Top 25 Inpatient Hospital Stays - Statewide 2007
    Data on median charges (typical prices) for 25 high-frequency SD inpatient hospitalizations and surgery. Includes newborns ($2025) and uncomplicated deliveries ($5244), Cesarean section; psychoses ($6404) and depression ($4996); complicated pneumonia, COPD ($9905); hip, knee, joint replacement ($31,450); back problems; heart failure ($10,640), Stent ($26,229), chest pain; digestive, stomach and abdominal procedures; hysterectomy ($15,763, up 15% from 2006); stroke; rehabilitation ($19,495, up 15%); kidney failure ($14,776) and more. To find the usual price for a specific hospital or surgical center, click on Hospitals in the upper right of the web page. Pub. June 2008 by SD Department of Health, 2007 prices

    (and south dakota is not an 'expensive state')*

    so that 'stent' procedure (not really complicated, and rather common) will still cost a medicare patient over 5k. and like i said, they're still paying out premiums every month, and rx costs. that's just healthcare.

    *and these are 2007 prices
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2014
  15. vertigo0923
    Offline

    vertigo0923 night owl mod VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    37,423
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    sec country
    Ratings Received:
    +4,805
    it's about 10k more for a hip or knee replacement.
  16. gatorev12
    Offline

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,468
    Likes Received:
    259
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,258
    You do realize that Card and Kreuger published their study into a book too, right?

    And that Neumark and Wascher are peer-reviwed economists, right? You want a peer-reviewed study by them, here you go:

    http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~dneumark/min_wage_review.pdf

    Unlike Card and Kreuger, their work has studied the effects of minimum wage across the entire economy, not just fast food workers in two states. And not just the American economy either--they also compared the numbers for other countries with minimum wage laws...and noted the effect on the labor market in those countries as well.

    To state that Neumark and Wascher aren't peer-reviewed is a blatant lie. They are world-famous economists and they've published several articles and books on the topic; which have been critically reviewed by their peers.

    The link I posted would be a good start. That is, if you're too lazy to actually go out and read the book.

    Economics isn't exactly an academic field that changes very often. Adam Smith's original works are still cited today--and those are centuries old.

    Card and Kreuger's study was counter-intuitive to how economics has always functioned. Many economists think their work is bunk--and have explained why in lots of articles and books since then. Including in studies that show empirical evidence.

    I figured that's the only way liberals could understand facts. After all, we see thread after thread on global warming citing the 90+% of studies say that scientists support global warming.

    But as far as lacking counters to Card and Kreuger, again, you're lying. For a second time. Sorry if you don't like being called out on it, but the fact remains that the two economists I provided have studied the Card and Kreuger findings and rejected them. Clearly, you're too lazy to go out and read a book; but to help in your education, I provided a link to one of their studies that has similar findings (though, again, I'll point out that the book goes into far greater detail and cites many more examples).
    • Winner Winner x 1
  17. vertigo0923
    Offline

    vertigo0923 night owl mod VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    37,423
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    sec country
    Ratings Received:
    +4,805

    'two economists have studied the card and kreuger findings and rejected them'

    two? i guess that means that c&k are unequivocally 'wrong' then.

    i personally presented other economists that agreed with the raising of minimum wage.

    see? it's just a matter of 'here's MY link', 'oh yeah? here's MY link to refute your link' "oh YEAH? well here's another one i'm posting as a rebuttal to your LAST link' etc etc ad nauseam.

    different philosophies. i stand by that.
  18. gatorev12
    Offline

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,468
    Likes Received:
    259
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,258
    Are you still blathering?

    I stopped paying attention after you admitted that you didn't read the studies and have little interest in doing so either. It'd be one thing if you read the book and still disagreed--that I could understand.

    You're refusing to even consider an opposing viewpoint and refusing to even read why the Card & Kreuger studies have been found to be inaccurate.

    Suffice it to say though: the economists I provided aren't the only ones who feel that way. I could provide dozens more that would say similar things; but we all know you won't read them, let alone attempt to comprehend what's in them (per your own admission). You have your opinion and it's not changing, regardless of what the facts or evidence says.
  19. vertigo0923
    Offline

    vertigo0923 night owl mod VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    37,423
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    sec country
    Ratings Received:
    +4,805
    aha!! there it is! it's my fave rightwingy word. the one that gives me the giggles.

    it's right up there with 'methinks', except it's funnier. it's also a weather vane of sorts. tells you when a republican is realllllllllllly annoyed.

    and like i said, i can counter 'your studies' with studies that negate your studies. but your ego tells you that YOUR studies are the 'right ones'.

    i apologize if saying so bothers you, but it's true. i know there's two sides. you don't.


    p.s. apparently you are paying attention.
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2014
    • Funny Funny x 1
  20. mdgator05
    Offline

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    6,269
    Likes Received:
    119
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +446
    Card and Kreuger's article was published in The American Economic Review not a book. That is a peer reviewed journal. What you provided was a book. I would accuse you of lying here (as you are apt to do apparently), but I'm thinking it was more out of ignorance on this point.

    Most of their best known work has studied teenagers or at best those under 24. Obviously, this is the majority of minimum wage earners. However, prior studies have found that firms shift away from part-time workers and to full-time workers with increases in the minimum wage. In many states, most teenagers are unable to work full time. So their results are not a full picture of the economy as you are attempting to claim here.


    World famous is probably a bit much, but I never said that they have never gone through peer-review, just the evidence you provided wasn't peer reviewed. That leads to issues with what types of broad statements an author is willing to make. For example, ff you read the paper you linked beyond the summary, you will notice that even though they advocate for their position, they are pretty careful to provide evidence that counters their research, of which they mention quite a bit (although I would argue that even at 184 pages, they leave out some important works). Their book summary did not seem as cautious.

    You should probably read and evaluate what is being said with more care before tossing around accusations, as you make accusations without really understanding what was said.

    I prefer research articles. It has nothing to do with laziness (as I'm currently reading through the 184 pages of the research article). Books are typically less robust. I have many criticisms of this article, including the idea that a narrative is more appropriate than a meta-analysis. I wonder if they found what the later analysis found, which is that if you equally weight the author's effects, which this paper is obviously advocating, with other author's effects, you get results that run slightly counter to their conclusions.

    Okay, you really have no clue what you are talking about here. Economics has been going through seismic changes in the past 2-3 decades. The implementation of advanced statistical techniques, the increased availability of data, the growth of dynamic structural models combining theory and empirical evidence, the growth of behavioral economics, which have thrown many of the assumptions of economics into question, have all been major changes in economics. This is a very different field than it was in 1975. Smith (or alternatively Cournot or Edgeworth) getting a citation in an introductory paragraph before I describe a dynamic structural model explaining an incredibly complex economic effect using thousands of data points and days of computing power is not really evidence of a static field.

    Okay. So far you have provided evidence of 5, the two authors in your piece, Hamermesh, Finis Welch, and Kim and Taylor, although even the authors of this piece have issues with the underlying assumptions made by Kim and Taylor. Many economists also think their work is accurate, and meta-analysis and replications dealing with some of the methodological issues with Card and Kreuger have provided additional evidence of the lack of a significant effect.

    Okay, you would have more of a case if well over 90% of studies in this field agreed with your viewpoint. They don't as shown in the review paper you linked.

    And Card and Kreuger have studied their rejection and rejected it. Of course, I only know that since you linked to the second article, which discussed a pair of papers in which they criticized Card and Kreuger and Card and Kreuger provided a very substantial answer to this criticism.

Share This Page