Thinking about post this on a friend's wall in response to her shitty reposting of the "poor EMT doesn't get paid enough so fuck the entitled burger flippers" meme.
Well a minimum wage job is supposed to keep people above the poverty line, but that when bye bye a while ago. Unless you're also saying that burger flippers deserve to live in poverty because they choose to flip burgers because there are so many well paying jobs available.
I mean sure that makes complete and total sense. I remember all of the job offers I got living in Ridgecrest when I was looking for work. Oh wait that's right, I couldn't even get a job flipping burgers in Ridgecrest, and to be honest I couldn't afford to move. I had help leaving R/C to Ventura, where I did get a min wage (temp) job and then a job making 10.50, which wouldn't have been able to pay for rent and college at the same time.
So the burger flippers want a min wage that they can live on, which is the original point behind the min wage, but you think that because it's generally unskilled labor and an entry level job they don't deserve to live above the poverty line and also deserve to pay for the barest minimum of health care.
Let's compare burger flipping to my favorite entry level unskilled job, the Private 2nd Class E-2. An E-2's montly pay is $1,734. Break that down into 40-hour weeks, because you don't get overtime pay in the military, and that is only a paltry $10.83 an hour. That's crazy you must be thinking. Outrageous even. However, the E-2 gets free health care, which includes dental and eye and covers all manner of expensive shit, worth at least $50 a month because that's what I pay as a reservist; free housing, looking the prices in Lakewood, WA that's worth between $500 and $1,500 a month, call it $800; three free meals a day, and not fast food garbage, actual food, which is currently valued at $367.92 a month. Everything other than the base pay is a benefit, and even if this private is drawing the monetary equivalent of those benefits, housing and food, those are not considered income and not taxed.
Monthly gross income would be approximately $3000, hourly wage of $18.75.
I'm also not factoring in the annual tuition cap of $4,500 or the annual clothing stipend which is between $306.00 and $464.40.
But then there is the justification that this private is signing their life away to possibly die, we lose more soldiers to mental health problems or auto accidents than in combat.
But that is also neither here nor there because not everyone CAN join the military even if they wanted to, in some cases for minor things that don't impact normal life, like being too near-sighted, or just not quite "smart" enough to pass the ASVAB.
The difference, a fry cook can cook for 5 years and leave as a normal human with a normal human body. You don't do a stint in the service without becoming broken in some regard.
The people who are opposed to raising the minimum wage pretty much universally have their heads up their asses, particularly the contingent which apparently believes that paying more in entry-level jobs is a threat to the middle class.
Most of them also don't seem to understand what "entry-level" even means.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 16, 2015, 06:07:34 PM
The people who are opposed to raising the minimum wage pretty much universally have their heads up their asses, particularly the contingent which apparently believes that paying more in entry-level jobs is a threat to the middle class.
Most of them also don't seem to understand what "entry-level" even means.
And great many of them seem to be the very people that would benefit from a higher minimum wage.
Quote from: Don Coyote on June 16, 2015, 06:11:09 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 16, 2015, 06:07:34 PM
The people who are opposed to raising the minimum wage pretty much universally have their heads up their asses, particularly the contingent which apparently believes that paying more in entry-level jobs is a threat to the middle class.
Most of them also don't seem to understand what "entry-level" even means.
And great many of them seem to be the very people that would benefit from a higher minimum wage.
I think a lot of them have been lied to by their bosses. My housemate is a production manager, and he's making $12/hour, which is absolutely ridiculous. His boss (also a friend of mine) told him that if the Oregon minimum wage goes to $15 he'll move the company out of state.
These kinds of threats are a common response from cheapskate business owners who have bought into the (bad) idea that the best way to increase profits is to decrease overhead, but they're basically all bluff. The cost of moving would be catastrophic, and getting re-established could take years. It's bullshit. Also, I've been telling this guy for years that if he hired at $12, he would be way ahead of the game with a higher caliber of employee. He should know this, he was once MY employee and I didn't pay anyone less than $12 at a time when the minimum wage was below $8; I expected a better caliber of employee, paid for it, and got it. He's gone through a half-dozen bad-idea employees because that's what you get when you pay minimum wage in a job that should be $12 to start.
i have seen the argument that minimum wage does not provide enough income to afford to rent an apartment. i get that - i've been there. but - what is to stop landlords from raising the rent once minimum wage is increased?
also - i think raising minimum wage would be devastating to many small business. many small businesses can barely keep the lights on as it is - raising the minimum wage could be the straw that breaks many camels' backs.
However, I was wondering - would making employees salaried be a "work around?" to this. is there a minimum legal annual salary?
It's really very simple. A consumer economy fails if nobody can afford to buy anything.
Somewhat relevant aside:
There's a cracking Mark Thomas bit about a trade union rep campaigning for the living wage (when that concept first got touted) and to get more union members. His chosen location was outside a Mcdonalds. He had clearly caused the management some distress and was being hassled by security. His line of defense was perfect:
"What the you hassling me for? I just want all these people to be earning £7.50/hour. I bet you're not getting £7.50/hour, how about you join the union?"
I've no idea what the end result for the guy was, but I would suspect that no small number of those opposed to whatever wages proposed see it as some kind of threat. Not just to the middle class, but to their own personal self worth. THEY are getting more so there must be less left for ME. Add in the USA rugged individualism bullshit and the historical treatment/portrayal of unions in the USA (elsewhere is little better) and you're creating a culture which fucks it's-self because it thinks that's how you get ahead.
Fuck the minimum wage, throw around the concept of "Maximum wage" and things get interesting.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 17, 2015, 01:32:58 AM
It's really very simple. A consumer economy fails if nobody can afford to buy anything.
And when a person/family has their basic needs met, they are much more apt to purchase luxury goods, which, i dunno, might possibly bolster a consumer based economy.
Quote from: rong on June 17, 2015, 01:32:03 AM
i have seen the argument that minimum wage does not provide enough income to afford to rent an apartment. i get that - i've been there. but - what is to stop landlords from raising the rent once minimum wage is increased?
also - i think raising minimum wage would be devastating to many small business. many small businesses can barely keep the lights on as it is - raising the minimum wage could be the straw that breaks many camels' backs.
However, I was wondering - would making employees salaried be a "work around?" to this. is there a minimum legal annual salary?
From a historical standpoint, businesses absorb the impact of a minimum wage increases rather well. Most small businesses only employee a handful of people, and very few at minimum wage. The impact to their profits tends to be rather low, with the large employers and franchise operations taking the largest hit. Franchises and large corporations don't typically have the issue with narrow profits that you see in small businesses. Overall, increases are typically absorbed rather easily... A few positions/hours will be cut, a few prices will be raised, and a few quarterly filings will show lower earnings forecasts, but using previous changes in minimum wage as an example, we can expect an increase in minimum wage to raise the living conditions for about the bottom 30% of wage earners.
Small businesses are usually reliant on the working and middle class for their customer base.
Having owned a small business, it is my opinion that small business owners are shooting themselves in the foot by paying minimum wage to begin with. An extra buck or two an hour is not a large proportion of overhead and can buy a significant amount of loyalty and productivity.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 17, 2015, 03:51:16 AM
Small businesses are usually reliant on the working and middle class for their customer base.
Having owned a small business, it is my opinion that small business owners are shooting themselves in the foot by paying minimum wage to begin with. An extra buck or two an hour is not a large proportion of overhead and can buy a significant amount of loyalty and productivity.
THIS ^^.
When I was doing contracting, I always put it in terms of "you get what you pay for."
Quote from: Dubya on June 17, 2015, 04:59:21 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 17, 2015, 03:51:16 AM
Small businesses are usually reliant on the working and middle class for their customer base.
Having owned a small business, it is my opinion that small business owners are shooting themselves in the foot by paying minimum wage to begin with. An extra buck or two an hour is not a large proportion of overhead and can buy a significant amount of loyalty and productivity.
THIS ^^.
When I was doing contracting, I always put it in terms of "you get what you pay for."
I have a friend in printing who has no end of trouble with employees. Low productivity, unreliability, drinking, disruptive behavior, falsifying qualifications, and so on. I keep telling him that he can minimize these problems by paying a couple bucks an hour more -- given that he only has three employees, that's not a lot of money -- and stands to gain huge increases in productivity while ending losses from turnover and training. He insists that his business "can't afford it". I call bullshit; the money his business is losing by going through new employees every six months is far more than it would cost to pay a couple more dollars an hour to a higher caliber of employee who is productive and sticks around.
But he went to business school and is wedded to the bottom line, instead of looking at the gains of increased productivity.
The most ironic part is that HE USED TO WORK FOR ME. I paid him more eight years ago than he pays his employees now. He bought one of my businesses when I decided I needed to work less.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 17, 2015, 05:29:08 AM
But he went to business school
Problem spotted.
Quoteand is wedded to the bottom line, instead of looking at the gains of increased productivity.
Which is typical business school bullshit. The only thing that matters is the space between the bottom line and the "top" line. Margin.
Of course, as soon as that margin starts looking juicy, it's time to get greedy and kill the goose with the golden eggs.
Because it's America, and we're dumb.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 17, 2015, 05:32:03 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 17, 2015, 05:29:08 AM
But he went to business school
Problem spotted.
Quoteand is wedded to the bottom line, instead of looking at the gains of increased productivity.
Which is typical business school bullshit. The only thing that matters is the space between the bottom line and the "top" line. Margin.
Of course, as soon as that margin starts looking juicy, it's time to get greedy and kill the goose with the golden eggs.
Because it's America, and we're dumb.
It's not even the size of the margin that counts, really; after all, you can make more profit with a smaller margin if you're moving more goods.
The funniest thing is that because people keep leaving, he ends up having to pay his highest-paid employee time and a half to work overtime to get the orders out.
But can't afford to hire at $12 instead of $10. :roll: It's absolutely every single one of the classic business errors.
high minimum wage is very good for the economy, just compare the economies of countries with a high minimum wage with countries with a low or no minimum wage.
Quote from: Junkenstein on June 17, 2015, 02:32:12 AM
Fuck the minimum wage, throw around the concept of "Maximum wage" and things get interesting.
We actually have that here, no-one is supposed to earn more than the prime minister.
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=nl&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fnl.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FBalkenendenorm&edit-text=&act=url
The weird thing to me is how this shift towards "profits at all costs" happened. My father was a loyal Republican, but he actually felt and acted like he had a responsibility to his employees... That their happiness and health helped translate into productivity.
He was right. His employees were as loyal as could be and often went way beyond what was expected for him, as he did the same for them. He never had a problem with his people stealing from him (they had plenty of opportunity to), they always kept customers happy, and the only time he had people quit was when they had life situations that required it.
Somehow in the years of the yuppies, businesses in this country lost the mindset that the business itself, management and employee, was one big family that took care of each other. When management starts to treat employees as just another replaceable component, employees also lose any sense of responsibility towards the company.
Well, I think I'm going to post it as a reply to her shitty meme. I just don't understand how my high school friends who have all struggled financially are so opposed to higher minimum wages where as I, who had a fairly comfortable, financially speaking, middle class life on Active duty, am all about giving the poor more fucking money. Probably because I actually grew up on welfare.
Quote from: Reginald Ret on June 17, 2015, 07:30:00 AM
high minimum wage is very good for the economy, just compare the economies of countries with a high minimum wage with countries with a low or no minimum wage.
Quote from: Junkenstein on June 17, 2015, 02:32:12 AM
Fuck the minimum wage, throw around the concept of "Maximum wage" and things get interesting.
We actually have that here, no-one is supposed to earn more than the prime minister.
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=nl&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fnl.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FBalkenendenorm&edit-text=&act=url
It's pretty much just simple fucking economics. I am astounded by how many people cannot seem to see that.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 17, 2015, 03:06:57 PM
Quote from: Reginald Ret on June 17, 2015, 07:30:00 AM
high minimum wage is very good for the economy, just compare the economies of countries with a high minimum wage with countries with a low or no minimum wage.
Quote from: Junkenstein on June 17, 2015, 02:32:12 AM
Fuck the minimum wage, throw around the concept of "Maximum wage" and things get interesting.
We actually have that here, no-one is supposed to earn more than the prime minister.
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=nl&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fnl.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FBalkenendenorm&edit-text=&act=url
It's pretty much just simple fucking economics. I am astounded by how many people cannot seem to see that.
Your 'simple economics' leaves no room for punishing the poor! How will they feed their punishment fetish without that?!
Quote from: Reginald Ret on June 17, 2015, 06:30:52 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 17, 2015, 03:06:57 PM
Quote from: Reginald Ret on June 17, 2015, 07:30:00 AM
high minimum wage is very good for the economy, just compare the economies of countries with a high minimum wage with countries with a low or no minimum wage.
Quote from: Junkenstein on June 17, 2015, 02:32:12 AM
Fuck the minimum wage, throw around the concept of "Maximum wage" and things get interesting.
We actually have that here, no-one is supposed to earn more than the prime minister.
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=nl&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fnl.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FBalkenendenorm&edit-text=&act=url
It's pretty much just simple fucking economics. I am astounded by how many people cannot seem to see that.
Your 'simple economics' leaves no room for punishing the poor! How will they feed their punishment fetish without that?!
:lulz: :lulz: :horrormirth: how short-sighted of me!
But increasing the minimum wage will create inflation.
(http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/8/86/Demon_llama.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20080205001457)
Quote from: The Johnny on June 18, 2015, 11:19:40 PM
But increasing the minimum wage will create inflation.
(http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/8/86/Demon_llama.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20080205001457)
Oh, well, in that case lets continue fucking over innocent people.
Some abstract number might grow and that is much worse than making a large section of society miserable.
I meant that that was one of the main arguments ive heard against minimum wage... since more people will have money, and buy more things with it, then money would be worth less because more demand for items. Or something, it never seemed that minimum wage has such a great impact on things of such great scale.
Quote from: The Johnny on June 19, 2015, 08:04:31 AM
I meant that that was one of the main arguments ive heard against minimum wage... since more people will have money, and buy more things with it, then money would be worth less because more demand for items. Or something, it never seemed that minimum wage has such a great impact on things of such great scale.
I know you weren't serious, i just hate such stupid arguments and I
have to respond.
Now that you have explained it, their position is even dumber.
Even economists understand it doesn't work that way, and I have absolutely no respect for economists.
For fuck's sake, raising wages does not create money. printing money creates money.
Also, more demand means your economy is growing. This is generally considered a good thing.
The worst thing that could happen as consequence of raising the minimum wage would be that some exploitative companies go belly-up.
Luckily, companies failing is a sign of a healthy economy, just like dying individuals is a sign of a healthy ecology.
As soon as they raise the minumum wage the corporations will raise prices and/or lay people off in order to recoup the increased personnel expenses (unless it passes in conjunction with other laws specifically forbidding the corporations from doing that), quickly returning the overall levels of poverty and human misery back to where they were before. It is acceptable as a temporary stopgap fix but will likely be useless for effecting lasting change.
Also, when did flipping burgers at McDonalds become a career???
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 21, 2015, 03:56:36 AM
As soon as they raise the minumum wage the corporations will raise prices and/or lay people off in order to recoup the increased personnel expenses (unless it passes in conjunction with other laws specifically forbidding the corporations from doing that), quickly returning the overall levels of poverty and human misery back to where they were before. It is acceptable as a temporary stopgap fix but will likely be useless for effecting lasting change.
Also, when did flipping burgers at McDonalds become a career???
Can you point to a single example of that happening anywhere in the world?
It's kind of amazing how no matter how many times a bad idea is refuted, a few hours later someone promoting it will pop back up with the same argument. Again.
Employee wages is only one part contributing to a company's overhead.
Look at Papa John's, which threatened to cut employee hours and raise prices if the ACA was passed... yet economists projected that a mere 5 cent per pizza cost increase would completely cover the fiscal impact for the company. In most cases, price increases for products would be a minimal percentage, because wages are not the primary cost-setting factor.
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 (http://www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm)
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 (http://www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm)
That is because it is completely retarded.
Allow me to explain:
Value of money is the total value of stuff divided by amount of money. (V
m=V
stuff/M
tot)
There are two ways to decrease it: lower the total value of stuff or increase the amount of money.
Neither is done by raising the minimum wage.
Quote from: Reginald Ret on June 21, 2015, 11:11:48 AM
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 (http://www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm)
That is because it is completely retarded.
Allow me to explain:
Value of money is the total value of stuff divided by amount of money. (Vm=Vstuff/Mtot)
There are two ways to decrease it: lower the total value of stuff or increase the amount of money.
Neither is done by raising the minimum wage.
Well, raising the minimum wage does increase the value of stuff side of the equation, as labor is indeed considered to be stuff in our economy, and increasing the lowest amount paid for such stuff increases its value overall, but not to a point that has any real or lasting effect. Of course, inflation to a point is a good thing and something economists and the fed like to see... Lately it's been low, we'll have to see where it goes. In the end, there are way too many ways to correct for changes in inflation for that to be a meaningful argument against raising the minimum wage... That's like arguing against going out to dinner because your windshield will get dirty and make it hard to see through.
Also, the "service jobs aren't a career, therefore people working those jobs shouldn't expect to be able to survive on them" fallacy.
QuoteIn 2008, more than three out of four jobs (77.2 percent) in the U.S. economy were in the service sector. By 2018, this dominance is expected to increase, with 78.8 percent of total employment being in the service sector.[6]
http://dpeaflcio.org/programs-publications/issue-fact-sheets/the-service-sector-projections-and-current-stats/
So more than 3 out of 4 Americans apparently have no business expecting to be able to pay bills with wages from full-time work? OK then.
Quote from: Rev Thwack on June 21, 2015, 12:49:18 PM
Quote from: Reginald Ret on June 21, 2015, 11:11:48 AM
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 (http://www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm)
That is because it is completely retarded.
Allow me to explain:
Value of money is the total value of stuff divided by amount of money. (Vm=Vstuff/Mtot)
There are two ways to decrease it: lower the total value of stuff or increase the amount of money.
Neither is done by raising the minimum wage.
Well, raising the minimum wage does increase the value of stuff side of the equation, as labor is indeed considered to be stuff in our economy, and increasing the lowest amount paid for such stuff increases its value overall, but not to a point that has any real or lasting effect. Of course, inflation to a point is a good thing and something economists and the fed like to see... Lately it's been low, we'll have to see where it goes. In the end, there are way too many ways to correct for changes in inflation for that to be a meaningful argument against raising the minimum wage... That's like arguing against going out to dinner because your windshield will get dirty and make it hard to see through.
That's still not inflation.
The main thing I hate is the idea that there are jobs where it is okay to be paid next to nothing and be treated in a degrading fashion because 'it isn't a career'.
Guess what, jackwad, people have to do that work - or you won't get your 'meal', and it is never okay to treat people like they are worthless, regardless of how much value you place on their job.
I think a good part of this is misplaced aggression because there's a lot of people out there who feel like what they do 9-5 every day doesn't actually produce anything meaningful and they like to push other people down to make themselves feel better by comparison. 'Sure, all I accomplished today was to send a few dozen emails, but at least I'm not flipping burgers!'
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 21, 2015, 03:15:43 PM
Quote from: Rev Thwack on June 21, 2015, 12:49:18 PM
Quote from: Reginald Ret on June 21, 2015, 11:11:48 AM
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 (http://www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm)
That is because it is completely retarded.
Allow me to explain:
Value of money is the total value of stuff divided by amount of money. (Vm=Vstuff/Mtot)
There are two ways to decrease it: lower the total value of stuff or increase the amount of money.
Neither is done by raising the minimum wage.
Well, raising the minimum wage does increase the value of stuff side of the equation, as labor is indeed considered to be stuff in our economy, and increasing the lowest amount paid for such stuff increases its value overall, but not to a point that has any real or lasting effect. Of course, inflation to a point is a good thing and something economists and the fed like to see... Lately it's been low, we'll have to see where it goes. In the end, there are way too many ways to correct for changes in inflation for that to be a meaningful argument against raising the minimum wage... That's like arguing against going out to dinner because your windshield will get dirty and make it hard to see through.
That's still not inflation.
I assumed he meant amount instead of value, in that case it kinda makes sense in an Economist's sense.
But this shit here? That is the reason economists should be shot on graduation. Labour is what you do to increase the amount of stuff. The moment you start thinking labor is the same as stuff you start thinking that inefficiency is only good for complex (read: interesting) jobs, because in simple(read: boring) jobs the result of doing a simple job more efficiently means that the value won by getting more stuff is completely lost to the lost value of taking less hours to do the labour. While fun and interesting jobs are streamlined away because they benefit the most from reducing workhours.
Fukken economists. They should be drawn, quartered, hung from a tree, shot until they fall down, and run over by a Buick.
I don't think that condemning an entire field of study just because it produces many flawed theories is very productive, either. Economics is sort of a conglomeration of anthropology, psychology, history, and statistics, and the systems they're trying to work with are dynamic, complex, and incompletely understood. They aren't CREATING the systems, though; they're DESCRIBING the systems. Sometimes very badly. But still, getting rid of economists because they aren't very good at understanding economic systems is a bit like getting rid of psychologists in the 1930's because they weren't very good at understanding psychology; it wouldn't have made human psychology go away, it would have just impeded the accumulation of knowledge about it.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 21, 2015, 06:13:20 PM
I don't think that condemning an entire field of study just because it produces many flawed theories is very productive, either. Economics is sort of a conglomeration of anthropology, psychology, history, and statistics, and the systems they're trying to work with are dynamic, complex, and incompletely understood. They aren't CREATING the systems, though; they're DESCRIBING the systems. Sometimes very badly. But still, getting rid of economists because they aren't very good at understanding economic systems is a bit like getting rid of psychologists in the 1930's because they weren't very good at understanding psychology; it wouldn't have made human psychology go away, it would have just impeded the accumulation of knowledge about it.
Economists lack the feedback required to make it a form of science.
They project and project but they never review.
They never even try to estimate the accuracy of their past projections.
And then, having bolstered their ego by ignoring reality, they project some more.
I stand by my point. Fuck 'em all with pointy sticks.
Quote from: Reginald Ret on June 21, 2015, 10:05:23 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 21, 2015, 06:13:20 PM
I don't think that condemning an entire field of study just because it produces many flawed theories is very productive, either. Economics is sort of a conglomeration of anthropology, psychology, history, and statistics, and the systems they're trying to work with are dynamic, complex, and incompletely understood. They aren't CREATING the systems, though; they're DESCRIBING the systems. Sometimes very badly. But still, getting rid of economists because they aren't very good at understanding economic systems is a bit like getting rid of psychologists in the 1930's because they weren't very good at understanding psychology; it wouldn't have made human psychology go away, it would have just impeded the accumulation of knowledge about it.
Economists lack the feedback required to make it a form of science.
They project and project but they never review.
They never even try to estimate the accuracy of their past projections.
And then, having bolstered their ego by ignoring reality, they project some more.
I stand by my point. Fuck 'em all with pointy sticks.
That seems... sweeping, shallow, and inaccurate. I don't have a tremendous amount of respect for the field of economics, particularly pop economics, but as an academic field it is still developing.
Can you cite some sources for those statements? If not, I'm going to just assume you're going through one of your all-hyperbole phases again and are (hopefully) temporarily incapable of contributing meaningfully to conversations.
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 (http://www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm)
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?
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 21, 2015, 10:18:11 PM
Quote from: Reginald Ret on June 21, 2015, 10:05:23 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 21, 2015, 06:13:20 PM
I don't think that condemning an entire field of study just because it produces many flawed theories is very productive, either. Economics is sort of a conglomeration of anthropology, psychology, history, and statistics, and the systems they're trying to work with are dynamic, complex, and incompletely understood. They aren't CREATING the systems, though; they're DESCRIBING the systems. Sometimes very badly. But still, getting rid of economists because they aren't very good at understanding economic systems is a bit like getting rid of psychologists in the 1930's because they weren't very good at understanding psychology; it wouldn't have made human psychology go away, it would have just impeded the accumulation of knowledge about it.
Economists lack the feedback required to make it a form of science.
They project and project but they never review.
They never even try to estimate the accuracy of their past projections.
And then, having bolstered their ego by ignoring reality, they project some more.
I stand by my point. Fuck 'em all with pointy sticks.
That seems... sweeping, shallow, and inaccurate. I don't have a tremendous amount of respect for the field of economics, particularly pop economics, but as an academic field it is still developing.
Can you cite some sources for those statements? If not, I'm going to just assume you're going through one of your all-hyperbole phases again and are (hopefully) temporarily incapable of contributing meaningfully to conversations.
He mad, sis.
I'd only like to offer the distinction between the more vocally wrong economists, which are the ones that are paid or lobbied to hold such opinions, like most if not all of the think-tank assholes, and the good economists no one has heard of because the powers that be arent interested in promoting them.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 21, 2015, 10:18:11 PM
Quote from: Reginald Ret on June 21, 2015, 10:05:23 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 21, 2015, 06:13:20 PM
I don't think that condemning an entire field of study just because it produces many flawed theories is very productive, either. Economics is sort of a conglomeration of anthropology, psychology, history, and statistics, and the systems they're trying to work with are dynamic, complex, and incompletely understood. They aren't CREATING the systems, though; they're DESCRIBING the systems. Sometimes very badly. But still, getting rid of economists because they aren't very good at understanding economic systems is a bit like getting rid of psychologists in the 1930's because they weren't very good at understanding psychology; it wouldn't have made human psychology go away, it would have just impeded the accumulation of knowledge about it.
Economists lack the feedback required to make it a form of science.
They project and project but they never review.
They never even try to estimate the accuracy of their past projections.
And then, having bolstered their ego by ignoring reality, they project some more.
I stand by my point. Fuck 'em all with pointy sticks.
That seems... sweeping, shallow, and inaccurate. I don't have a tremendous amount of respect for the field of economics, particularly pop economics, but as an academic field it is still developing.
Can you cite some sources for those statements? If not, I'm going to just assume you're going through one of your all-hyperbole phases again and are (hopefully) temporarily incapable of contributing meaningfully to conversations.
I'm reading up on economics just to prove you wrong.
As you can see, my initial statements lack foundation.
It is very likely that it is one of my all-hyperbole phases (i like that phrase btw), but i will not rest until i have read more economics or have gotten distracted by something.
Well, except for now. now is bed time.
PS Your assumption would be well grounded, if I start making sense you will probably notice.
Other than that, I still think
Carthage needs to be burned to the ground Economics sucks.
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 21, 2015, 03:56:36 AM
As soon as they raise the minumum wage the corporations will raise prices and/or lay people off in order to recoup the increased personnel expenses (unless it passes in conjunction with other laws specifically forbidding the corporations from doing that), quickly returning the overall levels of poverty and human misery back to where they were before. It is acceptable as a temporary stopgap fix but will likely be useless for effecting lasting change.
Historically-speaking, this has NEVER happened with an increase in the minimum wage.
You are a dumbfuck.
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 (http://www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm)
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.
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 (http://www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm)
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.
You are missing the entire point of my argument and reframing the discussion at your convenience with that question - the answer being "sometimes", employers and owners are such assholes that they would rather mechanize production at a
higher expense to themselves than to pay decent wages and rates to employees regardless of
cost-efficiency. Mechanize until your employees will work for crumbs, if they start organizing and complaining, repeat step 1.
Sure, change and technology should cascade upwards someday just like trickle-down economics work, right? RIGHT? OH WAIT.
Quote from: The Johnny on June 21, 2015, 10:31:00 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 21, 2015, 10:18:11 PM
Quote from: Reginald Ret on June 21, 2015, 10:05:23 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 21, 2015, 06:13:20 PM
I don't think that condemning an entire field of study just because it produces many flawed theories is very productive, either. Economics is sort of a conglomeration of anthropology, psychology, history, and statistics, and the systems they're trying to work with are dynamic, complex, and incompletely understood. They aren't CREATING the systems, though; they're DESCRIBING the systems. Sometimes very badly. But still, getting rid of economists because they aren't very good at understanding economic systems is a bit like getting rid of psychologists in the 1930's because they weren't very good at understanding psychology; it wouldn't have made human psychology go away, it would have just impeded the accumulation of knowledge about it.
Economists lack the feedback required to make it a form of science.
They project and project but they never review.
They never even try to estimate the accuracy of their past projections.
And then, having bolstered their ego by ignoring reality, they project some more.
I stand by my point. Fuck 'em all with pointy sticks.
That seems... sweeping, shallow, and inaccurate. I don't have a tremendous amount of respect for the field of economics, particularly pop economics, but as an academic field it is still developing.
Can you cite some sources for those statements? If not, I'm going to just assume you're going through one of your all-hyperbole phases again and are (hopefully) temporarily incapable of contributing meaningfully to conversations.
He mad, sis.
I'd only like to offer the distinction between the more vocally wrong economists, which are the ones that are paid or lobbied to hold such opinions, like most if not all of the think-tank assholes, and the good economists no one has heard of because the powers that be arent interested in promoting them.
Yeah, I think he may be assuming that all economists fall into the former camp, and is unaware of the realm of academic economists who are chugging along trying to improve their social science methodology, and being completely ignored by the media and the public because the work they do is pretty much the opposite of glamorous. Or interesting, at least for most people.
Quote from: Reginald Ret on June 21, 2015, 10:51:36 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 21, 2015, 10:18:11 PM
Quote from: Reginald Ret on June 21, 2015, 10:05:23 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 21, 2015, 06:13:20 PM
I don't think that condemning an entire field of study just because it produces many flawed theories is very productive, either. Economics is sort of a conglomeration of anthropology, psychology, history, and statistics, and the systems they're trying to work with are dynamic, complex, and incompletely understood. They aren't CREATING the systems, though; they're DESCRIBING the systems. Sometimes very badly. But still, getting rid of economists because they aren't very good at understanding economic systems is a bit like getting rid of psychologists in the 1930's because they weren't very good at understanding psychology; it wouldn't have made human psychology go away, it would have just impeded the accumulation of knowledge about it.
Economists lack the feedback required to make it a form of science.
They project and project but they never review.
They never even try to estimate the accuracy of their past projections.
And then, having bolstered their ego by ignoring reality, they project some more.
I stand by my point. Fuck 'em all with pointy sticks.
That seems... sweeping, shallow, and inaccurate. I don't have a tremendous amount of respect for the field of economics, particularly pop economics, but as an academic field it is still developing.
Can you cite some sources for those statements? If not, I'm going to just assume you're going through one of your all-hyperbole phases again and are (hopefully) temporarily incapable of contributing meaningfully to conversations.
I'm reading up on economics just to prove you wrong.
As you can see, my initial statements lack foundation.
It is very likely that it is one of my all-hyperbole phases (i like that phrase btw), but i will not rest until i have read more economics or have gotten distracted by something.
Well, except for now. now is bed time.
PS Your assumption would be well grounded, if I start making sense you will probably notice.
Other than that, I still think Carthage needs to be burned to the ground Economics sucks.
I will be interested in learning the results of your expedition into the realm of economics. I always wanted to take some econ classes but it just didn't work out that way. I did take neuroeconomics, which was interesting (if horrifically flawed).
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 (http://www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm)
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.
This may seem shallow, but you should read Krugman's blog. He creates models and makes predictions based on those models, and then revises those models based upon how accurate those predictions are.
He also talks a lot about economists who elevate politics over theory.
I don't believe any economists, because their field is where psychology was in the 1970s. Some of them may be using proper methodology, but you can't see them because the rest of them are jabbering shit about the laffer curve or whatnot, and doing Aristotle-style logical gymnastics to prove that what SHOULD word DOES work, even though it never works at all.
Sooner or later, they'll get their shit together, the way psychology has gotten its shit together (or has at least drastically improved). On that day, I will listen.
As for right now, I put them in the same bucket as philosophers.
THAT BEING SAID:
The reality is that previous rises in the minimum wage have not resulted in inflation. That isn't theory, it's historical, measurable, and verifiable fact.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 22, 2015, 05:08:11 AM
I don't believe any economists, because their field is where psychology was in the 1970s. Some of them may be using proper methodology, but you can't see them because the rest of them are jabbering shit about the laffer curve or whatnot, and doing Aristotle-style logical gymnastics to prove that what SHOULD word DOES work, even though it never works at all.
Sooner or later, they'll get their shit together, the way psychology has gotten its shit together (or has at least drastically improved). On that day, I will listen.
As for right now, I put them in the same bucket as philosophers.
The ones that do good science aren't the ones you hear from, because they aren't the ones who tell people with money what they want to hear.
That's my hypothesis, anyway.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 22, 2015, 05:09:32 AM
THAT BEING SAID:
The reality is that previous rises in the minimum wage have not resulted in inflation. That isn't theory, it's historical, measurable, and verifiable fact.
Yup.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 22, 2015, 05:24:23 AM
The ones that do good science aren't the ones you hear from, because they aren't the ones who tell people with money what they want to hear.
That's my hypothesis, anyway.
I'm unsure how you could make a proper science out of it, on account of the fact that finance is always riddled with people gaming the system. You can't game physics or chemistry
1, because it either IS or it ISN'T, unless you're talking about that fucking cat.
I think economics as an approach is barking up the wrong tree. To understand economics, you have to understand humans, and that means psychology and neuroscience. Economics isn't a "natural" force as far as I can tell. It seems to be a
behavior.
1 Does not apply in Tucson or downtown Portland.
Pickety's 'Capital in the 21st Century' is a good example of economics as social science in my opinion.
He draws purely on historical evidence and statistics, and explains his reasoning every step of the way. It IS a political book, because it is a book not a paper and he makes it explicit at the start that he is against inequality and the whole book is an analysis of inequality as it has existed through the ages and what conditions have led to less of it.
It also points out that the system is rigged and provides some practical steps as to how this could be addressed based on the statistical evidence - but as the way to address it can be summarized as 'tax people based on their assets not their earnings' that will never happen.
ETA - In case it wasn't clear, I mean it is a political book in the sense that rather than just saying 'this is what it is' he also makes an argument in a lot of cases that inequality is morally wrong and therefore steps should be taken to reduce it - and he makes the argument in emotional rather than scientific terms. You wouldn't see that in a harder science - like a psychiatric textbook - but then, I don't know if psychiatrists ever had to make the case that disorders are undesirable and should be cured where possible, which seems like the obvious comparison here.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 22, 2015, 05:09:32 AM
THAT BEING SAID:
The reality is that previous rises in the minimum wage have not resulted in inflation. That isn't theory, it's historical, measurable, and verifiable fact.
If previous rises in the minimum wage didn't affect inflation then I agree that another raise in the minimum wage will not affect it either.
Do you have a source for this?
Starting a thread for my exploration of economics in Techmology and Scientism.
I will post there every once in a while but not much now since i should be working.
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 22, 2015, 07:45:11 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 22, 2015, 05:09:32 AM
THAT BEING SAID:
The reality is that previous rises in the minimum wage have not resulted in inflation. That isn't theory, it's historical, measurable, and verifiable fact.
If previous rises in the minimum wage didn't affect inflation then I agree that another raise in the minimum wage will not affect it either.
Do you have a source for this?
Tell me if you can find a correlation, then we'll look at causation.
Minimum wage changes - http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/coverage.htm
Inflation changes - http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/historical-inflation-rates/
Quote from: Demolition Squid on June 22, 2015, 07:40:25 AM
Pickety's 'Capital in the 21st Century' is a good example of economics as social science in my opinion.
He draws purely on historical evidence and statistics, and explains his reasoning every step of the way. It IS a political book, because it is a book not a paper and he makes it explicit at the start that he is against inequality and the whole book is an analysis of inequality as it has existed through the ages and what conditions have led to less of it.
It also points out that the system is rigged and provides some practical steps as to how this could be addressed based on the statistical evidence - but as the way to address it can be summarized as 'tax people based on their assets not their earnings' that will never happen.
ETA - In case it wasn't clear, I mean it is a political book in the sense that rather than just saying 'this is what it is' he also makes an argument in a lot of cases that inequality is morally wrong and therefore steps should be taken to reduce it - and he makes the argument in emotional rather than scientific terms. You wouldn't see that in a harder science - like a psychiatric textbook - but then, I don't know if psychiatrists ever had to make the case that disorders are undesirable and should be cured where possible, which seems like the obvious comparison here.
I think you mean psychology textbook, because psychiatry is the psychological specialty in medicine.
Psychology is a social or "soft" science, like economics.
You do see arguments like that in psychology. Not generally in textbooks, but I also don't think that the book you're talking about is a textbook.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 22, 2015, 06:50:16 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 22, 2015, 05:24:23 AM
The ones that do good science aren't the ones you hear from, because they aren't the ones who tell people with money what they want to hear.
That's my hypothesis, anyway.
I'm unsure how you could make a proper science out of it, on account of the fact that finance is always riddled with people gaming the system. You can't game physics or chemistry1, because it either IS or it ISN'T, unless you're talking about that fucking cat.
I think economics as an approach is barking up the wrong tree. To understand economics, you have to understand humans, and that means psychology and neuroscience. Economics isn't a "natural" force as far as I can tell. It seems to be a behavior.
1 Does not apply in Tucson or downtown Portland.
Yes, economics is a behavioral science, like sociology and psychology.
It is not finance.
This might be helpful:
http://www.digitaleconomist.org/economics.html
Economics examines human social behavior as it pertains to resource allocation. That's all it is. Like psychology, it tends to suffer from fragmentation into different camps or schools of thought; for some reason, unlike anthropology and sociology, neither field has yet figured out how to work holistically for the betterment of the science. However, they can't stay in the 20th century forever.
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.
Quote from: Rev Thwack on June 22, 2015, 04:04:40 PM
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.
Yes, but we've already established that everything you know about the field, you have picked up through political coverage through the media, which means that you don't actually know what economics is and are not qualified to comment meaningfully on it.
You can bloviate, but until you know what it is, your opinions are meaningless. But look! You have this amazing tool, right under your very fingertips! What could it be? How could you use it to learn something, to inform your opinion before spouting it?
We just don't know. It's a mystery.
Sure economics uses scientific methods. The tools in economics are pretty much the tools that the rest of the social sciences use and in many respects economics leads the other social sciences because the object of its study is more easily quantifiable.
Just because it cannot give scientifically accurate answers in the sense of physics or chemistry has a lot more to do with the social sciences as a whole, and the ability to account for all factors, run rigourous testing (which in many cases can be unethical) and gather relevant data than it is that economics is uniquely terrible.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 22, 2015, 04:10:55 PM
Quote from: Rev Thwack on June 22, 2015, 04:04:40 PM
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.
Yes, but we've already established that everything you know about the field, you have picked up through political coverage through the media, which means that you don't actually know what economics is and are not qualified to comment meaningfully on it.
You can bloviate, but until you know what it is, your opinions are meaningless. But look! You have this amazing tool, right under your very fingertips! What could it be? How could you use it to learn something, to inform your opinion before spouting it?
We just don't know. It's a mystery.
No, you've assumed that my knowledge of economics comes from mass media, but nothing of the sort has been established. Instead, you've demonstrated a willingness to draw conclusions without a solid basis and to act like you understand something you have no direct knowledge of.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 22, 2015, 03:21:20 PM
Quote from: Demolition Squid on June 22, 2015, 07:40:25 AM
Pickety's 'Capital in the 21st Century' is a good example of economics as social science in my opinion.
He draws purely on historical evidence and statistics, and explains his reasoning every step of the way. It IS a political book, because it is a book not a paper and he makes it explicit at the start that he is against inequality and the whole book is an analysis of inequality as it has existed through the ages and what conditions have led to less of it.
It also points out that the system is rigged and provides some practical steps as to how this could be addressed based on the statistical evidence - but as the way to address it can be summarized as 'tax people based on their assets not their earnings' that will never happen.
ETA - In case it wasn't clear, I mean it is a political book in the sense that rather than just saying 'this is what it is' he also makes an argument in a lot of cases that inequality is morally wrong and therefore steps should be taken to reduce it - and he makes the argument in emotional rather than scientific terms. You wouldn't see that in a harder science - like a psychiatric textbook - but then, I don't know if psychiatrists ever had to make the case that disorders are undesirable and should be cured where possible, which seems like the obvious comparison here.
I think you mean psychology textbook, because psychiatry is the psychological specialty in medicine.
Psychology is a social or "soft" science, like economics.
You do see arguments like that in psychology. Not generally in textbooks, but I also don't think that the book you're talking about is a textbook.
Yeah, I meant psychology - sorry, that's what I get for posting before I'm actually awake. I just don't know jack about psychology apparently. :P
Capital in the 21st Century isn't a textbook, though, yeah. It is written with readability in mind. ... To a degree. It mostly comes across as a very angry statistics professor who is irritated that nobody else seems to have bothered to actually look at what they've been talking about for the past two hundred or so years.
He also makes the fatal mistake of crediting Marx with being the starting point for much of his analysis, though, which is a second tick in the 'pay no attention' column as far as a lot of people are concerned.
He
does frame his theory in scientific terms, though. He goes back over all the available data, looks at what was done and why, and how that impacted growth and inequality between the top and bottom percentiles in society. The trouble is, as an economist, he can't isolate his phenomenon, he can't control it he has to rely on what large economic actors (mostly governments, some families/corporations) do and the timescales is decades.
That all makes it hard to experiment in a traditional scientific way, but it isn't as though he tosses out examples where they don't fit. He's just shifted his analysis accordingly and looked at everything he can get his hands on since taxation records began, then analysed what happened at peaks and troughs and so forth. That's definitely 'science' to me. I was often reminded of climate change studies whilst reading it, actually - how temperature rises and falls over centuries and why that is . When the phenomena you're looking at are that big, you can't really 'retest' you can only use the data you're able to collect; that doesn't make the science any less valid.
Thwack beat me to it.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 22, 2015, 03:22:55 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 22, 2015, 06:50:16 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 22, 2015, 05:24:23 AM
The ones that do good science aren't the ones you hear from, because they aren't the ones who tell people with money what they want to hear.
That's my hypothesis, anyway.
I'm unsure how you could make a proper science out of it, on account of the fact that finance is always riddled with people gaming the system. You can't game physics or chemistry1, because it either IS or it ISN'T, unless you're talking about that fucking cat.
I think economics as an approach is barking up the wrong tree. To understand economics, you have to understand humans, and that means psychology and neuroscience. Economics isn't a "natural" force as far as I can tell. It seems to be a behavior.
1 Does not apply in Tucson or downtown Portland.
Yes, economics is a behavioral science, like sociology and psychology.
It is not finance.
Oki doke. All I know is that I've looked up that damn graph dealing with minimum wage vs inflation a billion times while talking to libertarians and other moral sinks.
So that part I know. The rest was opinion based on casual observation.
Quote from: Demolition Squid on June 22, 2015, 07:40:25 AM
Pickety's 'Capital in the 21st Century' is a good example of economics as social science in my opinion.
Nifty, added to reading list.
All I know is that a few people calling themselves Economists made some models and predicted in advance how the economy would behave under certain scenarios, like austerity measures in a liquidity trap.
The economy behaved as was predicted. That, for the most part, leads me to think someone knows what they're doing sometimes.
Now, there are other people calling themselves Economists who made theories, and then backed it up with some models, and made predictions, and were wrong. However, they did not go back and adjust their models to make sense of what happened, but instead doubled down on their theories.
That, for the most part, leads me to think someone has no idea what they're doing most of the time.
Now im confused because there are two threads but, someone mentioned meteorology, and its a good example; just because you can describe something in a scientific manner does not equate with the ability to predict an outcome and that does not make it any less scientific, theres simply far too many volatile factors to take into account.
As some of you know, I'm a psychologist, and most of the time we work based on triangulation of factors to make diagnosis and treatment which is a constant process because the subject is in perpetual flow.
And well, thru a quick look at wikipedia, theres positive and theres normative economics, separating what "is" from "what ought be", so theres that too.
If anything, ive gotten from these discussions that some people blindly hate economists and its blurring their judgement about an entire field.
The amount of variable is enormous, you're right, so specific predictions ("The market will go up 357 points at 10:07 AM") are impossible.
But so long as you have enough information (which itself is a problem: economists correctly predicted the housing bubble, but the shadow markets built around subprime mortgages weren't revealed until everything began falling apart, meaning no one was able to predict how bad it was going to get), you can make reasonable predictions about how the market will behave, so long as you continue to update your priors. (http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Bayes'_theorem)
It's not the inability to predict results that people here are knocking economists on, but the seemingly unwillingness to update their theories based upon experiments that give results contrary to what was predicted.
Well, until people start making specific references, it's just another "All X are Y" argument.
I've already given one person who calls themselves an economist who updates their models based upon reality.
I can also name several who don't, and yes, they tend to get the most amount of press, but that doesn't make it the fault of economics.
It's discrediting physics because of the people who go around saying "the observer creates the universe".
Many econonmists who have problems updating their priors also have significant financial interests in not doing so, including but not limited to easy access to publication in a conservative press sympathetic to their rubbish, book deals with associated publishing houses and jobs with think tanks or on academic chairs funded by the same people who back their prominence in the press.
Most scientists by contrast are not quite so richly rewarded for getting things wrong.
Quote from: Cain on June 23, 2015, 02:22:00 AM
Many econonmists who have problems updating their priors also have significant financial interests in not doing so, including but not limited to easy access to publication in a conservative press sympathetic to their rubbish, book deals with associated publishing houses and jobs with think tanks or on academic chairs funded by the same people who back their prominence in the press.
Most scientists by contrast are not quite so richly rewarded for getting things wrong.
Yes. Absolutely agree. See also: Scientists who write anti-global warming studies, or the studies that show smoking does not cause cancer.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 22, 2015, 09:50:44 PM
Well, until people start making specific references, it's just another "All X are Y" argument.
I've already given one person who calls themselves an economist who updates their models based upon reality.
I can also name several who don't, and yes, they tend to get the most amount of press, but that doesn't make it the fault of economics.
It's discrediting physics because of the people who go around saying "the observer creates the universe".
Dingdingdingding
Quote from: Rev Thwack on June 22, 2015, 05:00:22 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 22, 2015, 04:10:55 PM
Quote from: Rev Thwack on June 22, 2015, 04:04:40 PM
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.
Yes, but we've already established that everything you know about the field, you have picked up through political coverage through the media, which means that you don't actually know what economics is and are not qualified to comment meaningfully on it.
You can bloviate, but until you know what it is, your opinions are meaningless. But look! You have this amazing tool, right under your very fingertips! What could it be? How could you use it to learn something, to inform your opinion before spouting it?
We just don't know. It's a mystery.
No, you've assumed that my knowledge of economics comes from mass media, but nothing of the sort has been established. Instead, you've demonstrated a willingness to draw conclusions without a solid basis and to act like you understand something you have no direct knowledge of.
Quote from: Rev Thwack on June 22, 2015, 01:21:19 PM
Hasn't the GOP since the start of Reagan proven that there's no need to look at your predictions to see if they came true as long as you can pretend they did, or blame the other guy when you can't even pretend?
Quote from: Rev Thwack on June 22, 2015, 05:00:22 PM
No, just saying that actually showing predictions to be true or false is something that is ignored in politics today, and most of what you hear regarding economist is political in nature unless you're in the financial industry yourself.
I'm sorry, did you mean something else when you said this?
You can find "experts in a field" saying all kinds of things that are incongruent with the science in that field. That's where we get "experts" like Dr. Oz and Dr. Mercola.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 23, 2015, 07:14:26 AM
Quote from: Rev Thwack on June 22, 2015, 05:00:22 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 22, 2015, 04:10:55 PM
Quote from: Rev Thwack on June 22, 2015, 04:04:40 PM
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.
Yes, but we've already established that everything you know about the field, you have picked up through political coverage through the media, which means that you don't actually know what economics is and are not qualified to comment meaningfully on it.
You can bloviate, but until you know what it is, your opinions are meaningless. But look! You have this amazing tool, right under your very fingertips! What could it be? How could you use it to learn something, to inform your opinion before spouting it?
We just don't know. It's a mystery.
No, you've assumed that my knowledge of economics comes from mass media, but nothing of the sort has been established. Instead, you've demonstrated a willingness to draw conclusions without a solid basis and to act like you understand something you have no direct knowledge of.
Quote from: Rev Thwack on June 22, 2015, 01:21:19 PM
Hasn't the GOP since the start of Reagan proven that there's no need to look at your predictions to see if they came true as long as you can pretend they did, or blame the other guy when you can't even pretend?
Quote from: Rev Thwack on June 22, 2015, 05:00:22 PM
No, just saying that actually showing predictions to be true or false is something that is ignored in politics today, and most of what you hear regarding economist is political in nature unless you're in the financial industry yourself.
I'm sorry, did you mean something else when you said this?
Well, what I didn't mean, and what I didn't say (because it's not true) is that my knowledge of economics comes from political reporting. What I was doing was drawing a connection between economics and politics, due to how deeply the two are merged here in the US.
The connection is that politicians and pundits use poor economic models to justifiy their economic programs.
Again, the analogy is that of Dr Oz using bad science to justify his latest scheme fad diet.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 23, 2015, 01:52:13 PM
The connection is that politicians and pundits use poor economic models to justifiy their economic programs.
Again, the analogy is that of Dr Oz using bad science to justify his latest scheme fad diet.
I've seen an equally large number of economists use their political beliefs as backing for their economic models which conflict with evidence, as well as using the same political ideology to financially profit off of these flawed models/theories.
When you've got economists like Block & Bourdeaux who use untested and unsupported theories to make political claims, when you have things like the Austrian school which works to avoid the scientific method and falsifiable claims, how can you view it as a science?
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.
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!
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.
Here is an interesting article that essentially discusses this very issue: http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/robert-j--shilleron-whether-he-is-a-scientist
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?
Dog is man's best friend.
A dog bit me.
That dog isnt really a dog cause it bit me and isnt my best friend.
:C
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.
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...
This is a good read for avoiding the pitfalls of logical fallacies:
http://www.brainpickings.org/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan/
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?
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 (http://www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm)
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
Quote from: Rev Thwack on June 24, 2015, 05:44:32 AM
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.
It is a social science by definition because it is the study of animal behavior. Social science is a valid form of science, it's just not a physical or hard science. I'm a hard scientist, but even I can recognize the validity of the social sciences. Institutionally, economics is generally treated as exactly what it is: a social science. It cannot be treated as any other kind of science because it is incapable of being any other type of science, any more than sociology or anthropology are capable of being any other types of science.
Can you perhaps explain what you think "social science" means?
Social science means it's focused on the interaction and nature of man, to put it simply.... These absurd requests like this do nothing but work as snide subtle insults, and don't reflect well on your ability to hold a discussion.
Either way, I've said before and will say again that I don't hold social sciences to be sciences. Science is a specific process, and that process is not a core feature of social sciences. Yes, it can be adhered to at times, but it's not a defining feature. This isn't saying that social sciences are useless or even of less value than other sciences, just that the label doesn't truly apply. This view isn't an uncommon one, and it applies to more than just the social sciences.
My field is computer science. The question of calling a social science a science applies to computer science as well, and many state that it's not a science. Personally, I understand where the question arises with my field, and would say that while it's leaning towards being a science, it's not there yet. Computer science meets most criteria and definitions of a science, yet still too often relies on and centers around theories that are not falsifiable... One of the same flaws seen by many about the social science realm. This is something that seems to be changing in computer science, and my personal hope is that the full scientific method will become a defining feature of computer science. The science label being inappropriate doesn't detract from the value of the field, it just means it's not an appropriate label.
The unwillingness to update hypothesis/predictions/theories based on real world data and results, that's something that talks against the value of a field, and that's a problem faced by economics.
Speaking as someone who studies a social science, your beliefs about social sciences are completely wrong. Observation, hypothesis, prediction, testing and analysis are the core of the scientific method and this methodology has been adopted wholesale by the social sciences.
The problems come in at the tesing phase, where usually data is historical because of the difficulty of testing under controlled conditions the hypothesis is frequently difficult to impossible (how do you undertake a test to devise the probability of interstate war in the aftermath of civil war without relying on historical data?) and in quantifying data for analysis in some specific cases. In such cases, qualitative research is often undertaken as a preliminary approach to inform quantitative data gathering in the future and open avenues for future research.
Reliance on historical data obviously hamstrings social science in a very specific way, as does being unable to control all variables in those historical models. Attempting to account for these difficulties means the complexity of social science often quickly reaches levels far beyond that seen in the natural sciences, making conclusions far more contingent and less reliable than those available to natural science researchers.
Quote from: Cain on June 24, 2015, 04:56:07 PM
Speaking as someone who studies a social science, your beliefs about social sciences are completely wrong. Observation, hypothesis, prediction, testing and analysis are the core of the scientific method and this methodology has been adopted wholesale by the social sciences.
The problems come in at the tesing phase, where usually data is historical because of the difficulty of testing under controlled conditions the hypothesis is frequently difficult to impossible (how do you undertake a test to devise the probability of interstate war in the aftermath of civil war without relying on historical data?) and in quantifying data for analysis in some specific cases. In such cases, qualitative research is often undertaken as a preliminary approach to inform quantitative data gathering in the future and open avenues for future research.
Reliance on historical data obviously hamstrings social science in a very specific way, as does being unable to control all variables in those historical models. Attempting to account for these difficulties means the complexity of social science often quickly reaches levels far beyond that seen in the natural sciences, making conclusions far more contingent and less reliable than those available to natural science researchers.
Cain, there's a disconnect between saying that the social sciences follow the scientific method and saying that they often can't complete the testing step and thus must rely on historical data. There's also a problem with saying that economics follows the scientific method when you have sending like the Austrian school as an accepted school of though, while it advocates and claims that formulating testable hypothesis isn't applicable to the field of study. There's a problem with saying that economics in particular uses historical data to update and refine models, when the widely accepted neoclassical economics ignores the historical evidence that individuals don't act in an economically rational method.
If my beliefs about social sciences is completely wrong, why is there widespread acceptance in social sciences of actions inconsistent with the scientific method and of schools of thought that state specifically that the scientific method isn't applicable to their field?
Quick question: If economics is not a science, and by your mode of thought there can't possibly be a science of economics, then how do you suggest we analyze the factors which determine the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 24, 2015, 08:09:05 PM
Quick question: If economics is not a science, and by your mode of thought there can't possibly be a science of economics, then how do you suggest we analyze the factors which determine the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services?
One, I never said there can't be a science of economics, I said it's not there yet.
Two, I never said that it's useless for predictions & analysis just because it's not a science.
Three, when you take a view of economics that includes all accepted schools and philosophies instead of just specific ones, looking at real world outcomes compared to predictions and analysis, what kind of track record does the field have?
Can you talk a little more about what you mean by "widespread acceptance"? You may think these questions are snide subtle insults, but you have a tendency to make vague, sweeping statements, and then to say "that's not what I meant" when people attempt to refute them.
The fact that there are widespread problems with the field is something that I think we all agree with. What that means in terms of the field falling within or without of the realm of social science is another matter. Obviously, you are fully entitled to your beliefs about whether social science is, indeed, science at all, but I am in agreement with Cain in that from what you have written here so far, it appears that your understanding of social science, and of science at all, is fairly erroneous.
Widespread acceptance... You've got reputable universities offering degrees specializing the the Austrian school... You've got Nobel prizes being awarded to neoclassical economists... If this isn't widespread acceptance, what is?
You might doubt my understanding of what is or isn't a science, yet you can hardly say I'm alone in rejecting social sciences as actual sciences, and you can hardly say that my stance doesn't have many intelligent, well respected scientists on its side.
Quote from: Rev Thwack on June 25, 2015, 04:16:13 AM
Widespread acceptance... You've got reputable universities offering degrees specializing the the Austrian school... You've got Nobel prizes being awarded to neoclassical economists... If this isn't widespread acceptance, what is?
You might doubt my understanding of what is or isn't a science, yet you can hardly say I'm alone in rejecting social sciences as actual sciences, and you can hardly say that my stance doesn't have many intelligent, well respected scientists on its side.
Appeal to authority much? You are a slippery bastard to try to have a discussion with. Would you like to try to put together a simple, cogent, point-by-point case? Because essentially what you are currently doing, still, is saying "Here's this thing that happens! Here's that thing that happens!", while seeming to disregard that you can find professors with endorsing questionable schools of thought in major universities in almost any field, and even winning Nobel prizes. And, although I disagree with them, I am not sure disregarding economists who embrace neoliberalism is in itself a sound argument.
You again appeal to authority, saying "you can hardly say that my stance doesn't have many intelligent, well respected scientists on its side". OK... so cite them. Point us toward their arguments, if you cannot formulate one of your own. I only request that they and their criticisms be current, and not historical, as we are talking about the current state of social science, not the historical state.
This seems relevant: http://chrisauld.com/2013/10/23/18-signs-youre-reading-bad-criticism-of-economics/
This also seems relevant: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/opinion/sunday/the-social-sciences-physics-envy.html?_r=0
And then there's this article, which I suspect it's possible that both of us will agree with: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-social-science-an-oxymoron-will-that-ever-change/
Even as biological sciences start folding in lessons from data analysis that is more typical of social sciences, social sciences seem to be scrambling to adopt the language and methods of hard sciences, which I think is a mistake. Social science is statistics to hard science's calculus; both employ methodological approaches that are uniquely suited to different types of data, and both are advancing apace. You can even have the most complex of both worlds in fields like epidemiology and epigenetics. Copping the language of hard science by bastardizing its language in an effort to gain legitimacy is embarrassing and reflective of an inferiority complex that is, IMO, unnecessary.
I also think that the hangup on the idea of experimental data is a throwback to a more primitive era of science when, lacking sophisticated technology or data-collecting methods, it was the best we could do. Many gains in our knowledge of molecular biology and brain function are dependent on "experiments" that are simply advanced methods of observation. Does that render them not science? I would beg to differ, and as our observational technology improves, we will increasingly have methods for looking inside a living cell and observing mechanisms that could previously only be inferred from experimental machinations that attempted to approximate true observation of processes too small to observe directly.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 25, 2015, 04:46:58 AM
Appeal to authority much?
Well, when you're looking to see if something is accepted by a field, wouldn't it be prudent to see if it's accepted by authority sources in the field? If you're trying to find out the United State's take on the occupation of the West Bank, it's not a fallacy to see what the POTUS can Congress have said/passed regarding it.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 25, 2015, 04:46:58 AM
You are a slippery bastard to try to have a discussion with.
No, it only appears that way because I keep having to respond to different, tangential direct lines of questioning, and because you're often attacking arguments I never made, but we'll get more into that later in this post.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 25, 2015, 04:46:58 AM
Would you like to try to put together a simple, cogent, point-by-point case?
This would be easier if you didn't keep shifting lines of attack and points of interest, but let's see what we can do:
So, if we look back to my first post in this thread that dealt with economics to find what sparked this, we'll see this post
Quote from: Rev Thwack on June 22, 2015, 04:04:40 PM
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.
Reading that, we find that my initial argument was that economics is not a science. Now, the only reasoning I provided as to why it's not a science was because it can miss out on using evidence/results to challenge the hypothesis, but that is still a reasoning and if it holds as true, then it would mean that economics does not follow the scientific method. The quote did also give an example of this occurring, with that example being the continued acceptance of supply side economics.
So, what happened next wasn't a debate on if my argument held up, a debate on the reasoning I used to support my argument, or a debate on the example I provided... what happened was you jumping directly to ad hominem attacks.
If we look at my next post that was dealing with this discussion and wasn't just me admonishing you for resorting to baseless personal attacks, we'll find this:
Quote from: Rev Thwack on June 22, 2015, 09:34:35 PM
It's not the inability to predict results that people here are knocking economists on, but the seemingly unwillingness to update their theories based upon experiments that give results contrary to what was predicted.
So, once again, my complaint for the second time now is data not being used to update theories/predictions/models. After that, you resorted to trying to back up your personal attacks by using a joke I made and a quote taken from a different discussion and injecting them into this thread, before getting back on topic with a second post:
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 23, 2015, 07:17:17 AM
You can find "experts in a field" saying all kinds of things that are incongruent with the science in that field. That's where we get "experts" like Dr. Oz and Dr. Mercola.
LMNO then parroted this, and we then began the train of me trying to point out to you where it's not just fringe Dr. Oz types who don't update their priors and people arguing things incongruent in the field, but instead that there are whole schools of thought that are accepted in the field and are built upon priors which have been contradicted by historical and real world data and/or deny that falsifiable hypothesis have pertinence to the field at all.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 25, 2015, 04:46:58 AMBecause essentially what you are currently doing, still, is saying "Here's this thing that happens! Here's that thing that happens!", while seeming to disregard that you can find professors with endorsing questionable schools of thought in major universities in almost any field, and even winning Nobel prizes.
No, what I've been doing has been very specific... saying that economics itself, as a field, does not use the scientific method, and specifically the components of developing a falsifiable hypothesis and testing the hypothesis against collected data, as a integral component of itself. While yes, there are examples of where it is used, it is not a defining feature, as evidenced by the continued acceptance as a valid viewpoint, things such as the Austrian school, Laissez-faire capitalism, and the Chicago school.
What I haven't been doing, that you've accused me of doing, is arguing that data must be collected via tests instead of historical data, arguing that economics is meaningless / useless, or arguing that by not being a science, economics somehow is of less value than it would be otherwise. I see value in economics, I see where it is useful, but I also see it as one of the humanities such as philosophy.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 25, 2015, 04:46:58 AM
You again appeal to authority, saying "you can hardly say that my stance doesn't have many intelligent, well respected scientists on its side". OK... so cite them. Point us toward their arguments, if you cannot formulate one of your own. I only request that they and their criticisms be current, and not historical, as we are talking about the current state of social science, not the historical state.
I have formulated one of my own, and I've explained it, but since you feel you need yet more examples:
We can see what thoughts on this come from members of the humanities -
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/what-is-economics-good-for/?ref=opinion&_r=0
We can see what some economists themselves say -
http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/is-economics-a-science-spoiler-alert-nope/
http://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2013/nov/06/is-economics-a-science-robert-shiller
We can hear the take of a well respected geneticists -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NiauhOCfsk
because apparently you've rejected my video featuring Richard Feynman as not being recent enough to still be viable.
Now, would you like to quit resulting to personal attacks, strawmen, and unrelated topics, and instead just stick with the actual discussion that's happening?
tl;dr
Quote from: Rev Thwack on June 25, 2015, 02:37:01 PM
No, what I've been doing has been very specific... saying that economics itself, as a field, does not use the scientific method, and specifically the components of developing a falsifiable hypothesis and testing the hypothesis against collected data, as a integral component of itself. While yes, there are examples of where it is used, it is not a defining feature, as evidenced by the continued acceptance as a valid viewpoint, things such as the Austrian school, Laissez-faire capitalism, and the Chicago school.
OK, I tormented myself by filtering through that shitshow of posturing to find the one paragraph that has some substance.
So you are now backing away from the "social science is not science" claim now, and are back to "economics as a field doesn't use the scientific method"? OK. Since myself, Cain, and LMNO have refuted this claim, and since you have clearly declined to actually read the links we've posed, as evidenced by the fact that
you reposted one I posted earlier and it doesn't support your views, even though apparently you think it does, I think I am done talking to you.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 25, 2015, 03:20:20 PM
Quote from: Rev Thwack on June 25, 2015, 02:37:01 PM
No, what I've been doing has been very specific... saying that economics itself, as a field, does not use the scientific method, and specifically the components of developing a falsifiable hypothesis and testing the hypothesis against collected data, as a integral component of itself. While yes, there are examples of where it is used, it is not a defining feature, as evidenced by the continued acceptance as a valid viewpoint, things such as the Austrian school, Laissez-faire capitalism, and the Chicago school.
OK, I tormented myself by filtering through that shitshow of posturing to find the one paragraph that has some substance.
So you are now backing away from the "social science is not science" claim now, and are back to "economics as a field doesn't use the scientific method"? OK. Since myself, Cain, and LMNO have refuted this claim, and since you have clearly declined to actually read the links we've posed, as evidenced by the fact that you reposted one I posted earlier and it doesn't support your views, even though apparently you think it does, I think I am done talking to you.
First, I never said I'm not still taking the same stance on social science in general. Instead, I'm directly responding to a request you made of a point by point detail on my original claim. The call of all social science as not being a science is incidental to the original discussion and yet another example of your constant efforts to distract from the topic into any statement you think you might be able to argue against, no matter how far removed from the original point of contention.
Second, I love your continued use of yourself and a few others here as the true authorities of what does and doesn't constitute a science. It's even more amusing to watch you place yourselves higher than actual experts in the fields and their takes on it.
Third, you'll probably want to read the links again if you feel they don't support my claim. Every link I posted contains people stating the same thing I am... That economics is not a science.
Forth, you really should learn the basics of debate. Your continual misdirection, refuting unclaimed points, and insults do you little justice if you want to be taken as someone with any ability for rational thought or intellectual prowess.
Quote from: Rev Thwack on June 25, 2015, 04:36:41 PM
Second, I love your continued use of yourself and a few others here as the true authorities of what does and doesn't constitute a science. It's even more amusing to watch you place yourselves higher than actual experts in the fields and their takes on it.
Yes, that's why we keep posting links to actual experts. Sounds legit.
Quote from: Rev Thwack on June 25, 2015, 04:36:41 PM
Third, you'll probably want to read the links again if you feel they don't support my claim. Every link I posted contains people stating the same thing I am... That economics is not a science.
:lulz: That's not what Shiller said, at all.
Quote from: Rev Thwack on June 25, 2015, 04:36:41 PM
Forth, you really should learn the basics of debate. Your continual misdirection, refuting unclaimed points, and insults do you little justice if you want to be taken as someone with any ability for rational thought or intellectual prowess.
Yes, I shall go forth and learn the basics of debate! I know nothing of this. I want ppl to think im smrt, everybody currently sees me as a blithering idiot.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 25, 2015, 04:43:20 PM
Quote from: Rev Thwack on June 25, 2015, 04:36:41 PM
Second, I love your continued use of yourself and a few others here as the true authorities of what does and doesn't constitute a science. It's even more amusing to watch you place yourselves higher than actual experts in the fields and their takes on it.
Yes, that's why we keep posting links to actual experts. Sounds legit.
Quote from: Rev Thwack on June 25, 2015, 04:36:41 PM
Third, you'll probably want to read the links again if you feel they don't support my claim. Every link I posted contains people stating the same thing I am... That economics is not a science.
:lulz: That's not what Shiller said, at all.
Quote from: Rev Thwack on June 25, 2015, 04:36:41 PM
Forth, you really should learn the basics of debate. Your continual misdirection, refuting unclaimed points, and insults do you little justice if you want to be taken as someone with any ability for rational thought or intellectual prowess.
Yes, I shall go forth and learn the basics of debate! I know nothing of this. I want ppl to think im smrt, everybody currently sees me as a blithering idiot.
So, let's look at what Shiller said...
"We judge economics by what it can produce. As such, economics is rather more like engineering than physics, more practical than spiritual."
"Fields of endeavour that use "science" in their titles tend to be those that get masses of people emotionally involved and in which crackpots seem to have some purchase on public opinion. These fields have "science" in their names to distinguish them from their disreputable cousins."
"My belief is that economics is somewhat more vulnerable than the physical sciences to models whose validity will never be clear, because the necessity for approximation is much stronger than in the physical sciences, especially given that the models describe people rather than magnetic resonances or fundamental particles."
"The challenge has been to combine its mathematical insights with the kinds of adjustments that are needed to make its models fit the economy's irreducibly human element."
"And, while economics presents its own methodological problems, the basic challenges facing researchers are not fundamentally different from those faced by researchers in other fields. As economics develops, it will broaden its repertory of methods and sources of evidence, the science will become stronger, and the charlatans will be exposed."
Shiller proposes a question, but never gives a direct answer. Instead, he frames his response to suggest that science is something economics is still becoming. He acknowledges that it has flaws, that it is still developing its methodology... Nowhere does he state that it is currently a science, but instead argues that it is incorporating more and more of what it means to be a science.
As far as the experts you've posted stating it is a science, you might want to check those links again. There is not one you posted where they state that social sciences or economics are a science. Instead, you'll find that two of them actually state that economics is more like engineering than science. You've accused me of not reading your links twice now, which I have... I'm trying to decide if you have issues with reading comprehension or issues with projecting.
I think that you are a victim of confirmation bias.
Twahck, what the fuck is wrong with your paragraph spacing :lulz:
Even my transcription of your stupid video has better format and that just shows that you write things out of compulsion and for yourself rather than to have a real conversation with others. You seem to conversate to others rather than with.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 25, 2015, 06:39:08 PM
I think that you are a victim of confirmation bias.
Considering the track record you've displayed so far of mislabelling statements as fallacies, combined with your constant use of fallacies and reliance on insults instead of evidence backed arguments and strong reasoning, I don't put much stock in this thought of yours.
Quote from: The Johnny on June 25, 2015, 06:50:11 PM
Twahck, what the fuck is wrong with your paragraph spacing :lulz:
Even my transcription of your stupid video has better format and that just shows that you write things out of compulsion and for yourself rather than to have a real conversation with others. You seem to conversate to others rather than with.
Yea... Using Tapatalk and still used to other sites that have issues with paragraphs needing multiple returns.
Well, I have learned very much about this Thwack person. :lulz:
Quote from: Don Coyote on June 25, 2015, 07:07:13 PM
Well, I have learned very much about this Thwack person. :lulz:
The question is, does he deserve minimum wage, or would that raise inflation? :?
You'd have to ask a scientist.
Quote from: Demolition Squid on June 25, 2015, 07:17:49 PM
Quote from: Don Coyote on June 25, 2015, 07:07:13 PM
Well, I have learned very much about this Thwack person. :lulz:
The question is, does he deserve minimum wage, or would that raise inflation? :?
Quote from: Cain on June 25, 2015, 07:30:04 PM
You'd have to ask a scientist.
There's no way to answer the question right now, because there is no scientific way to understand economics, by definition.
Can I just say as someone who knows almost literally nothing about economics, that this entire thread has been utterly fascinating. For several reasons.
Also, Nigel, I love you even harder.
Quote from: Hoopla on June 25, 2015, 09:36:09 PM
Can I just say as someone who knows almost literally nothing about economics, that this entire thread has been utterly fascinating. For several reasons.
Also, Nigel, I love you even harder.
:kiss:
working as a cook/chef sounds so horribly horrible in us, you have my condolences. if moving to norway ever becomes a topic we need cooks/chefs in oslo and if you know one who can start next wednesday on the outdoor grill, all prep is done in the morning, service from 12 to 18/20ish depending on crowd/weather and get paid for 12 to 20 every day anyhow please send him my way
ps two cold three hot dishes
e ok fry cook was something else in my mind hi nevermind me
e2 ok actually tried to get a job flipping burgers when i was like 24 or something and desperate and both mcdonalds and burger king said i was too old and later on someone told me they dont hire anyone but management over 20 so i guess thats how you do it here
The legend of ECH notwithstanding, I'm considering being a cook in Norway now.
Quote from: Sepia on June 26, 2015, 11:03:47 PM
working as a cook/chef sounds so horribly horrible in us, you have my condolences. if moving to norway ever becomes a topic we need cooks/chefs in oslo and if you know one who can start next wednesday on the outdoor grill, all prep is done in the morning, service from 12 to 18/20ish depending on crowd/weather and get paid for 12 to 20 every day anyhow please send him my way
ps two cold three hot dishes
e ok fry cook was something else in my mind hi nevermind me
e2 ok actually tried to get a job flipping burgers when i was like 24 or something and desperate and both mcdonalds and burger king said i was too old and later on someone told me they dont hire anyone but management over 20 so i guess thats how you do it here
In a lot of ways, working in general is terrible here.
yeah, the murrican chefs fresh off the boat are the most adorable things
they stories they tell sometimes sounds like you've not abolished slavery
Quote from: Sepia on July 09, 2015, 09:12:17 PM
yeah, the murrican chefs fresh off the boat are the most adorable things
they stories they tell sometimes sounds like you've not abolished slavery
In many ways it just got rebranded.
Quote from: Don Coyote on July 10, 2015, 04:59:26 PM
Quote from: Sepia on July 09, 2015, 09:12:17 PM
yeah, the murrican chefs fresh off the boat are the most adorable things
they stories they tell sometimes sounds like you've not abolished slavery
In many ways it just got rebranded.
That gave me a chill.
I know quite a few cooks here, and it is gruelling work. Long hours, irregular schedules, and horrible bosses. The mandatory weekends tends to cut into your social life as well, especially if you have friends with regular jobs.
On the other hand it is a career that you can put some creativity in and hard work is very much rewarded, so personal fulfillment is practically guaranteed.
On top of that it pays very well and you get to play with knifes and fire.
Your food expenses drop precipitously as well and that is not something to dismiss out of hand. For example: Food is about 1/4 of my monthly expenses, and I make about 20% more than minimum wage. (To be honest, I could spend less on food if I wanted to.)
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on July 10, 2015, 05:21:13 PM
Quote from: Don Coyote on July 10, 2015, 04:59:26 PM
Quote from: Sepia on July 09, 2015, 09:12:17 PM
yeah, the murrican chefs fresh off the boat are the most adorable things
they stories they tell sometimes sounds like you've not abolished slavery
In many ways it just got rebranded.
That gave me a chill.
QG, I'm sure there's big words here if mangled a bit. "You've not abolished slavery, you just rebranded it"?
Not sure on that but there's something there for sure.
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 11, 2015, 01:07:46 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on July 10, 2015, 05:21:13 PM
Quote from: Don Coyote on July 10, 2015, 04:59:26 PM
Quote from: Sepia on July 09, 2015, 09:12:17 PM
yeah, the murrican chefs fresh off the boat are the most adorable things
they stories they tell sometimes sounds like you've not abolished slavery
In many ways it just got rebranded.
That gave me a chill.
QG, I'm sure there's big words here if mangled a bit. "You've not abolished slavery, you just rebranded it"?
Not sure on that but there's something there for sure.
"Slavery Never Died
It Just Got Rebranded"
?
Yeah, slap a McDonalds and coke logo on that and you're done.
I would replace "died" with "ended".
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 12, 2015, 04:17:40 PM
Yeah, slap a McDonalds and coke logo on that and you're done.
McDonalds. Then you can tack on their I'm loving it slogan. Or maybe Walmarts always slogan.
The classic example being Henry Ford, who paid his line workers something like double the going rate. Why? So they could afford to buy a car.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 14, 2015, 02:09:29 PM
Henry Ford
Obviously more proof that the minimum wage is Nazism and Jew-hating.
as if more proof was needed :lulz: