News:

Revenge is a dish best served salty, sterile, wet and warm.

Main Menu

So you fucking think fry cooks don't deserve a higher minimum wage?

Started by Don Coyote, June 16, 2015, 05:52:22 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

It's funny, but I think there's a word for the practice of judging an entire population based on a small sample.

It's right on the tip of my tongue...
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


Mesozoic Mister Nigel

"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


Rev Thwack

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 23, 2015, 07:32:14 PM
Quote from: Rev Thwack on June 23, 2015, 04:42:07 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 23, 2015, 04:02:48 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 23, 2015, 03:59:06 PM
If an "economist" starts with an ideological conclusion, they're not being economists, they're being pundits.

It's simply not science if you begin with a conclusion and backfill from there.  You know this.

I think you're mixing up economics with people who call themselves economists.

But if they're publicly visible and politically affiliated, they must represent the academic field.

Logic!
Bourdeaux teaches at George Mason, was the chair there from '01-'09, and has also taught at Clemson.


Block is the chair at Loyola, and has taught at Central Arkansas, Holy Cross, Baruch, and Rutgers.



There are degrees in the Austrian school at  University of Missouri, George Mason, University of Chicago, North Central, and North Carolina, just to name a few places in the US.



How is it wrong to say this school isn't part of economics? What credentials does an individual need to count as an economists if these professors do not?

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 23, 2015, 04:04:53 PM
The existence of bad economists means that it must follow that all economists are bad and the field of economics is invalid, because science and reasons.
Funny, I'm pretty sure I never made that argument. Would you like to find more straw men to add to this one so we can get a nice party going?
My balls itch...

Prelate Diogenes Shandor

#93
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 22, 2015, 12:56:15 AM
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 22, 2015, 12:11:42 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on June 21, 2015, 10:22:44 PM
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 21, 2015, 09:23:50 AM
Ok, the US department of labor says that the studies they've reviewed indicate that increases to the minimum wage are not correlated with layoffs, so I was wrong about that. It also says that raising it is not in general bad for the economy. The idea that it may speed up inflation however is conspicuously absent from their list of common myths about the minimum wage

There's a billion excuses to lay off people, one of them has been the machinization of production, which isnt necesarrily a matter of cost-efficiency most of the time, but rather to break the power of unions and make factory workers/employeees a malleable mass that can be subdued.

How many cases are there where a working hand is replaced with a bot that requires a huge investment and it also requires specialized maintenance by a specially trained engineer that ends up costing more than the original working hand?

But im sure you are pre-rich, so does it even matter?


Wait, are you saying that raising the minimum wage will or won't lead to layoffs?

Also, mechanization is necessary for the eventual advent of a post-scarcity society. People get screwed over by it now, but that's because society hasn't caught up with the technology and the technology isn't yet quite to where it needs to be. It hurts people now, but in a rather short time on a historical timescale (still rather long subjectively though, as compared to a human lifespan, I'll admit) things will be better than they ever were. Eventually it will seem absurd to expect people to work because there will quite visibly be only a tiny handful of things that need doing. Change should hopefully cascade upwards once there's nobody left for managers to manage.

Also regardless of which side is winning the conflict between capitalists/management and workers/proletariat has the primary effect of screwing over the consumer. A plague on both their houses.

Who is the consumer, then? You speak of them as if they are some third party to the management/labor conflict.

In a way they are, and despite the fact that nearly all of them overlap with at least one of the other two groups they are nevertheless, in this role, inherently at odds with the other two groups. It comes down to what the main point of business is and wherein lies its value to society... does it exist to enrich fatcats? Does it exist to create jobs so that the common man can make a living? No to both, it's primary value to society is to provide goods and services; jobs and profits are both merely incidental bonuses (or, depending on how you look at it, necessary evils)
Praise NHGH! For the tribulation of all sentient beings.


a plague on both your houses -Mercutio


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrTGgpWmdZQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVWd7nPjJH8


It is an unfortunate fact that every man who seeks to disseminate knowledge must contend not only against ignorance itself, but against false instruction as well. No sooner do we deem ourselves free from a particularly gross superstition, than we are confronted by some enemy to learning who would plunge us back into the darkness -H.P.Lovecraft


He who fights with monsters must take care lest he thereby become a monster -Nietzsche


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHhrZgojY1Q


You are a fluke of the universe, and whether you can hear it of not the universe is laughing behind your back -Deteriorata


Don't use the email address in my profile, I lost the password years ago

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Quote from: Rev Thwack on June 23, 2015, 09:42:29 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 23, 2015, 07:32:14 PM
Quote from: Rev Thwack on June 23, 2015, 04:42:07 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 23, 2015, 04:02:48 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 23, 2015, 03:59:06 PM
If an "economist" starts with an ideological conclusion, they're not being economists, they're being pundits.

It's simply not science if you begin with a conclusion and backfill from there.  You know this.

I think you're mixing up economics with people who call themselves economists.

But if they're publicly visible and politically affiliated, they must represent the academic field.

Logic!
Bourdeaux teaches at George Mason, was the chair there from '01-'09, and has also taught at Clemson.


Block is the chair at Loyola, and has taught at Central Arkansas, Holy Cross, Baruch, and Rutgers.



There are degrees in the Austrian school at  University of Missouri, George Mason, University of Chicago, North Central, and North Carolina, just to name a few places in the US.



How is it wrong to say this school isn't part of economics? What credentials does an individual need to count as an economists if these professors do not?

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 23, 2015, 04:04:53 PM
The existence of bad economists means that it must follow that all economists are bad and the field of economics is invalid, because science and reasons.
Funny, I'm pretty sure I never made that argument. Would you like to find more straw men to add to this one so we can get a nice party going?

Naw, I wouldn't know where to add them, since the goalposts won't seem to stay in one place.

"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


Reginald Ret

Nigel, thanks for those two links.
The Baloney one isn't economics related but I filed it under the same bookmarkfolder anyway so it won't disappear in the Swamp of Forgotten Bookmarks.
Lord Byron: "Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves."

Nigel saying the wisest words ever uttered: "It's just a suffix."

"The worst forum ever" "The most mediocre forum on the internet" "The dumbest forum on the internet" "The most retarded forum on the internet" "The lamest forum on the internet" "The coolest forum on the internet"

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Quote from: Reginald Ret on June 23, 2015, 10:27:10 PM
Nigel, thanks for those two links.
The Baloney one isn't economics related but I filed it under the same bookmarkfolder anyway so it won't disappear in the Swamp of Forgotten Bookmarks.

It's a handy one to have around. Also, it illustrates the point that Carl Sagan was rad.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


Mesozoic Mister Nigel

So what is your argument, exactly, Thwack? Because so far the only thing you seem to be willing  to commit to is that bad economists exist, which everyone seems to commit to. You SEEM to be saying that economics isn't a science because of this. Is that what you are saying? If it isn't, would you care to clarify your opinion? Because otherwise, you're just kind of snarking from the sidelines. Which is fine if that's what you want to do, but if it IS what you want to do, I'd appreciate knowing  that so I can ignore you from here on out.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


Rev Thwack

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 23, 2015, 10:35:40 PM
So what is your argument, exactly, Thwack? Because so far the only thing you seem to be willing  to commit to is that bad economists exist, which everyone seems to commit to. You SEEM to be saying that economics isn't a science because of this. Is that what you are saying? If it isn't, would you care to clarify your opinion? Because otherwise, you're just kind of snarking from the sidelines. Which is fine if that's what you want to do, but if it IS what you want to do, I'd appreciate knowing  that so I can ignore you from here on out.
"I've got a hard time calling economics a science. If we say something is a science, we're giving the impression that it follows the scientific method. Economics seems to miss out on the whole section of analyzing results to see if the hypothesis held up. I mean, you still hear economists arguing for trickle down economics."


That was where I first brought up my view on this, and where you decided you needed to start making unfounded personal attacks. Now, are there good examples of economics out there that actually follows the scientific method? Sure, there is without a doubt. What I'm saying is that following the scientific method... Coming up with falsifiable predictions, analyzing data and experiments about them, and using that data to analyze your original hypothesis... That is not a common feature of the field of economics. Too much of mainstream economics, as taught by academia and accepted by professional society has abandoned these activities which are at the core of what it means to be a science.


This has been my stance the whole time, my arguments have all been to this end, you just keep derailing the discussion with ad hominem, straw men, and non sequiturs.
My balls itch...

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Quote from: Rev Thwack on June 24, 2015, 01:34:16 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 23, 2015, 10:35:40 PM
So what is your argument, exactly, Thwack? Because so far the only thing you seem to be willing  to commit to is that bad economists exist, which everyone seems to commit to. You SEEM to be saying that economics isn't a science because of this. Is that what you are saying? If it isn't, would you care to clarify your opinion? Because otherwise, you're just kind of snarking from the sidelines. Which is fine if that's what you want to do, but if it IS what you want to do, I'd appreciate knowing  that so I can ignore you from here on out.
"I've got a hard time calling economics a science. If we say something is a science, we're giving the impression that it follows the scientific method. Economics seems to miss out on the whole section of analyzing results to see if the hypothesis held up. I mean, you still hear economists arguing for trickle down economics."


That was where I first brought up my view on this, and where you decided you needed to start making unfounded personal attacks. Now, are there good examples of economics out there that actually follows the scientific method? Sure, there is without a doubt. What I'm saying is that following the scientific method... Coming up with falsifiable predictions, analyzing data and experiments about them, and using that data to analyze your original hypothesis... That is not a common feature of the field of economics. Too much of mainstream economics, as taught by academia and accepted by professional society has abandoned these activities which are at the core of what it means to be a science.


This has been my stance the whole time, my arguments have all been to this end, you just keep derailing the discussion with ad hominem, straw men, and non sequiturs.

Except... you're just plain wrong, if you examine the academic field of economics. Or read any of the links that LMNO and I have provided. But when I explained that economics is indeed a social science and is practiced as such in academia, you simply pointed to the GOP, pundits, etc. as if that were some kind of valid rebuttal. Your goalposts shifted endlessly, so I simply resorted to making fun of you.

Have you ever been here before?  :lulz:
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Also, I am going to admit, most of your posts are snarky drive-bys with not substance and I just plain don't like you.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


Rev Thwack

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 24, 2015, 03:26:56 AM
Quote from: Rev Thwack on June 24, 2015, 01:34:16 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 23, 2015, 10:35:40 PM
So what is your argument, exactly, Thwack? Because so far the only thing you seem to be willing  to commit to is that bad economists exist, which everyone seems to commit to. You SEEM to be saying that economics isn't a science because of this. Is that what you are saying? If it isn't, would you care to clarify your opinion? Because otherwise, you're just kind of snarking from the sidelines. Which is fine if that's what you want to do, but if it IS what you want to do, I'd appreciate knowing  that so I can ignore you from here on out.
"I've got a hard time calling economics a science. If we say something is a science, we're giving the impression that it follows the scientific method. Economics seems to miss out on the whole section of analyzing results to see if the hypothesis held up. I mean, you still hear economists arguing for trickle down economics."


That was where I first brought up my view on this, and where you decided you needed to start making unfounded personal attacks. Now, are there good examples of economics out there that actually follows the scientific method? Sure, there is without a doubt. What I'm saying is that following the scientific method... Coming up with falsifiable predictions, analyzing data and experiments about them, and using that data to analyze your original hypothesis... That is not a common feature of the field of economics. Too much of mainstream economics, as taught by academia and accepted by professional society has abandoned these activities which are at the core of what it means to be a science.


This has been my stance the whole time, my arguments have all been to this end, you just keep derailing the discussion with ad hominem, straw men, and non sequiturs.

Except... you're just plain wrong, if you examine the academic field of economics. Or read any of the links that LMNO and I have provided. But when I explained that economics is indeed a social science and is practiced as such in academia, you simply pointed to the GOP, pundits, etc. as if that were some kind of valid rebuttal. Your goalposts shifted endlessly, so I simply resorted to making fun of you.

Have you ever been here before?  :lulz:
The mention of the GOP happened very early on, but your comments about economics being a social science pretty much get at the heart of my take on economics as not being a science... That being that I tend to agree with Feynman's take... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaO69CF5mbY
My balls itch...

LMNO

Okay... Let's back up.


I'm pretty sure you've agreed that there is a structure for economics to behave as a science, and that there are people who treat it as a science. You've also adamantly held that the majority of self-professed economists don't act that way.

So, I think we have all agreed on two points

1) ECONOMICS CAN BE TREATED AS A SCIENCE.  SOME DO.

2) A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T TREAT ECONOMICS AS A SCIENCE.  SOME DO.



Thwack, where are you currently finding disagreement?

Rev Thwack

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 24, 2015, 04:58:52 AM
Okay... Let's back up.


I'm pretty sure you've agreed that there is a structure for economics to behave as a science, and that there are people who treat it as a science. You've also adamantly held that the majority of self-professed economists don't act that way.

So, I think we have all agreed on two points

1) ECONOMICS CAN BE TREATED AS A SCIENCE.  SOME DO.

2) A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T TREAT ECONOMICS AS A SCIENCE.  SOME DO.



Thwack, where are you currently finding disagreement?
I agree with both of those points, my issue is how it's treated at an institutional level. Are both approaches accepted by academia? Are both approaches accepted by leading professional organizations? The answer is yes, in both cases it's accepted to treat economics as a "social science". Saying non-scientific approaches are acceptable, yet economics still is a science would be like arguing it's OK to include astrology as part of astronomy without introducing problems with then calling astronomy a science.
My balls itch...

The Johnny

Quote from: Rev Thwack on June 24, 2015, 04:26:38 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 24, 2015, 03:26:56 AM
Quote from: Rev Thwack on June 24, 2015, 01:34:16 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 23, 2015, 10:35:40 PM
So what is your argument, exactly, Thwack? Because so far the only thing you seem to be willing  to commit to is that bad economists exist, which everyone seems to commit to. You SEEM to be saying that economics isn't a science because of this. Is that what you are saying? If it isn't, would you care to clarify your opinion? Because otherwise, you're just kind of snarking from the sidelines. Which is fine if that's what you want to do, but if it IS what you want to do, I'd appreciate knowing  that so I can ignore you from here on out.
"I've got a hard time calling economics a science. If we say something is a science, we're giving the impression that it follows the scientific method. Economics seems to miss out on the whole section of analyzing results to see if the hypothesis held up. I mean, you still hear economists arguing for trickle down economics."


That was where I first brought up my view on this, and where you decided you needed to start making unfounded personal attacks. Now, are there good examples of economics out there that actually follows the scientific method? Sure, there is without a doubt. What I'm saying is that following the scientific method... Coming up with falsifiable predictions, analyzing data and experiments about them, and using that data to analyze your original hypothesis... That is not a common feature of the field of economics. Too much of mainstream economics, as taught by academia and accepted by professional society has abandoned these activities which are at the core of what it means to be a science.


This has been my stance the whole time, my arguments have all been to this end, you just keep derailing the discussion with ad hominem, straw men, and non sequiturs.

Except... you're just plain wrong, if you examine the academic field of economics. Or read any of the links that LMNO and I have provided. But when I explained that economics is indeed a social science and is practiced as such in academia, you simply pointed to the GOP, pundits, etc. as if that were some kind of valid rebuttal. Your goalposts shifted endlessly, so I simply resorted to making fun of you.

Have you ever been here before?  :lulz:
The mention of the GOP happened very early on, but your comments about economics being a social science pretty much get at the heart of my take on economics as not being a science... That being that I tend to agree with Feynman's take... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaO69CF5mbY

Because of the success of science, there is a kind of uh, pseudo-science that social sciences are an example of, a science which is not a science, they don't do scientific, they follow the forms, uh, you gather data, you do so and so and so forth but they don't get any laws, they haven't found any, they haven't got anywhere yet, maybe someday they will, but it isn't very well developed.

But what happens is and even more mundane level, we get experts on everything, sort of of scientific expert that, they're not ??? they sit in a typewriter and makeup something like, oh, food grown with, fertilizer that is organic is better for you than food grown with fertilizer that isn't organic, maybe true but it might not be true, but it hasn't been demonstrated one way or another, but they sit there in the typewriter and they make up all this stuff as if its science and then become an expert on foods, organic foods and so on, there's all kinds of myths and pseudoscience all over the place.

Now, I might quite wrong, maybe they do know all this stuff, but, I don't think, I have the advantage of having found out how hard it is to really know something, how careful you have to be about checking your experiments, how easy it is to make mistakes and fool yourselves, I know what it means to know something and therefore I, see how they get their information, and I can't believe that they know what they haven't done the work necessary, haven't done the checks necessary, I have a great suspicion, that they don't know that this stuff, and intimidating people, I think so, I, I don't know the world very well, but that's what I think.


*************
*************
*************

SIT ALL DAY ON THE TYPEWRITER, WRITTING ABOUT LETTUCE AND ORGANIC FERTILIZER, YOLOSWAG.
<<My image in some places, is of a monster of some kind who wants to pull a string and manipulate people. Nothing could be further from the truth. People are manipulated; I just want them to be manipulated more effectively.>>

-B.F. Skinner