You say as if its value is changing in time. But it isnt. That is how we describe it as we try to determine its value. But when we examine it as a whole, rather then what it is gradually becoming, we look at what it ultimately is. And ultimately it ends up at 1.
How many people can a criminal kill with a knife before being stopped or getting exhausted? How likely are the victims to be dead instead of injured from a knife? Now compare that to pistols, then clmpare both of those to large clip semi auto. Nothing we do will stop crime completely, but that doesnt mean we shouldnt try to minimize the body count. What is the fatality count of British stabbings? Point and click killings are the problem. Without guns, killing would be much more difficult, exhausting, and visceral.
As for gangs. 1) you meauring an absolute value rather then per capita. We have the land and population of all of western europe combined. (Italy still beats us on gang violence tho).
2. A bunch of tiny gangs dont hold a candle to something like a single mexican cartle with military weapons and control of of whole towns and provinces. The crime in america is greatly exxagerated by fear mongers like the POTUS. It certainly exists, but it is consistently going down. Economic justice may be a better solution to crime then more armed altercations or police enforcement.
My ineffective self defense and constitutional question were my original points. I feel like both were avoided.
except i did substantiate the consistent correlation across decades within the debate. The gdp increase typically happened exactly 1 year AFTER min wage rises, and lasted for several years. Years of min wage decrease or stagnation also never reach the highs achieved ONLY after a rise in min wage. *across decades* starting with the year it was introduced.
Btw both advancing technology and any form of investing often require capital inflows... that would also likely be an accurate and logical correlation.
Cum hoc ergo surely applies in any individual case. But when the correlation repeats itself *consistently* across *decades*, it is a completely different thing.
Yeah, i highly doubt that gang claim:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/wef-countries-worst-organised-crime-problems-gangs-mafia-2017-11
And gangs would be much less of a problem if they didn't have so many guns. Where do you think they get their guns?
My main point was not the graph but my argument regarding how useless guns are in a self defense situation.
Technically speaking, most constitutional rights are rights from, not rights to. Like the right from unjust search and seizure, the right from persecution over religion or speech.
Also, most studies show you are in more danger if your armed as your gun is probably holstered with safety on as the mugger points his gun at you... and if its a mass shooting at an *unsuspecting* crowd... the gun wont help you much.
And then there is the question of the wording/meaning of the 2nd ammendement.
I dont understand what you mean by "what they are trying extra hard at".
I do understand what you are implying but with automation threatening everyone from warehouse and drivers to surgeons and accountants, what should they be trying at? Do you think ai cant code or repair other machines? Automation is a revolution which will require massive rethinking of our entire system.
But it isnt here yet, and their labor is still needed. Im talking about today's paycheck, not 20+ years in the future. What they are doing today is very necessary, they should be properly compensated for the value of their work, not devalued cause of the supply of their work or the tight margins with little wiggle room underwhich they live.
Im not talking about pectin, im talking about the apple. The apple is a lot more than just pectin and itnis delicious to many germs, good and bad. That is why apples rot, all kinds of germs are having a feast. Dont eat a rotting apple.
"Economics is reasoning whether it be propositional, "intuitive," tautological, etc. That's the reason my opening argument was constructed in that manner. My intention was not to create a contest over cited "data" but to rigorously challenge the consistency of our reasoning."
Thus you provided no data to back up the anecdote.
Meanwhile my intuitive conclusion that rising wages will increase spending demanded empirical data, which was provided, but was not "empirical enough".
Baloney
The relevancy was clearly stated. You claimed government involvement ruined prospects and people would be better negotiating or agreeing to their own wages. I showed what happens when the government is hands off and people "negotiated" their own terms.
There is no moment when minimum wage was isolated. But i did show consistent correlation across decades of its positive effects.
I do understand that i failed to reconnect it back to the poor in my quest to respond to every quote. However that technical error does not make any claim against the validity of my arguments.
More spending is obviously good for the poor who need to fix the car, get rid of mold, a new fridge or ac. All of which can boost savings and or productivity, just to name a few. Perhaps they may even be able to save for the future for they will age. This is, in addition to being benefitial to them, benefitial for all of us.
Increases to costs will be minimized by competition over their increased demand which will demand more hiring. And large portions of their costs will not rise, such as rent or medical which do not rely on low wage labor. I did mention these.
Does african have fire breathing lizards? And Asian dragons look nothing like western dragons. More like sea serpents then dinosaurs.
We have cave paintings of deer and bison. If there were dinosaurs around, wouldnt those be the primary subject of interest? Not bison?
The cambiran explosion took 10s or 100s of millions of years. That is very fast geologically speaking, but still a long time.
Also, to your dinosaur/birds argument. Dinosaurs existed for a long time. The Trex lived closer to us then it did to the stegosaurus. Plenty of time for birds to evolve and then be eaten. Just like dogs evolved from wolves, but wolves can still eat dogs.
This reminds me of the silly "why are there still monkeys" evolution complaint. Just because a group evolved doesnt mean every memeber of the previous group went extinct, or didnt have its own evolutionary path. Thats why we have more then 1 type of monkey, ape, feline, etc.
I completely agree with #2. Its a trap i try to avoid, but when it is used, its hard to not respond. Will try to avoid.
Your data criticism is very noted. My responses were disorganized, i did have a relatively short window to frame them in.
My only note would be that i did not intend to rely on the idea that the increased demand would completely outstrip price increase, but that it would at the least minimize it. Although surpassing it is a possibility. This was supplemented by the fact that a very substantial portion of costs (rent, also some others like medical) dont rely on wage labor for value and will not increase. This will also help wages outweight any price increases.
Me: Ive already said, in these comments, for people to please leave reviews even outside of the voting period for this exact reason. Ive been upfront since the start."
Athias: No you haven't. You complained; denied you complained; then continued to complain--even to the point of insinuating that a vote in my argument's favor was a possible "conspiracy." (Neglecting the fact that another vote was made in my argument's favor, but was dismissed on a "technicality.")
Me from post 23:
> @Ragnar, @bmdrocks21
Even if it's after the voting time, i would appreciate any reviews, reactions, or judgements of this debate. I know it wont score us or you any points... but isnt it all about the arguments and truth in the end?"
Even if it's after the voting time, i would appreciate any reviews, reactions, or judgements of this debate. I know it wont score us or you any points... but isnt it all about the arguments and truth in the end?
Thank you, and cheers!
As for the subject of the debate. You being right in a single, super welfare state situation still leaves minimum wage as benefitial in every other situation.
That aside, the fact that you had to betray your ideals to support your case shows how strong your actual beliefs are.
Ive already said, in these comments, for people to please leave reviews even outside of the voting period for this exact reason. Ive been upfront since the start.
Wanting reviews is not the same as selling out to score points. Do *you* really think we should raise taxes and pump up welfare as an alternative to minimum wage? Lol.
The only thing you taught me is to be more careful of the technical wording and rules of a debate due to the existence of dishonest people who simply want wins. Thank you.
Ill leave the rest to the voters/mods. Have a good day.
Existence of alternatives doesnt negate this alternative. A welfare state can be an alternarive to a min wage, but an inferior one imo. The min wage can accomplish everything without raising taxes.
If you want to win based on technicalities, go ahead. I tried to debate in good faith, you ignored my invite and then structured these very poorly chosen rules instead. Were you hoping just your partner on the min wage thread would be the only vote by setting the minimum amount of time for a 5 round extremely technical debate? Thats sad.
In america, in our current situation, a min wage is necessary. A max welfare state is a valid alternative, but the laissez faire economics you believe in is not. Enjoy your technicality win. You know these votes will be so consequential in the long term (sarcasm). Knowledge will be.
That is a pathetic technicality. We may as well be arguing that people need to eat food to live and you say "they dont need food when they are full".
If they are already paid a living wage, or gov takes care of them then obviously they are full and ok. When they are not full on adequate wages, they need a minumum wage.
Out of 1st world nations, which nations are MOST socialist... the nations you used for your no minimum wage (a form of government regulation) examples.
Min wage is needed when people are underpaid.
Min wage is not needed when people make a living wage. Or when the governmeny handles most of their living expenses.
Not rebutted. Ignored. I was referring to the voters. Not you.
Who cares how they vote. If you put your partisanship on either side away, you will clearly see US CITIZENS without proper representation. That is objectively wrong
I didnt call those nations socialist. I said they are the *most* socialist out of the *1st world nations*. As you said, all western nations have some socialist policies. Those nations have the most socialist policies. They dont have a minimum wage because their citizens are already paid a living wage. And if anyone is underpaid the government takes care of them with welfare policies.
Combined with my previous posts about your reply it doesnt seem my arguments were considered at all. You certainly copy and pasted many of my points, but a long analysis isnt by default a comprehensive analysis.
My opponents only argument is the wage floor pricing out workers, yet my lowest unemployment argument is completely ignored. (Unemployment obviously not counting many people, mostly children, elderly which are a giant chunk of our population, + handicapped/injured). Anyone not looking for a job isnt going to suddenly jump for one with lower pay. Even if he refuted my BoP, which he didnt, he didnt establish at all his BoP of how min wage harms the poor considering almost no new jobs will be created with a lower wage... we dont have many more unemployed workers available.
I made several economic arguments regarding supply and demand but those are ignored in favor of supposed loaded words like trickle down... which is an actual economic policy, how is it loaded? Just because its an embarassing failure that contiues to be pushed doesnt.mean it cannot be mentioned.
"one could also argue that this “Introduction of regulations” let to those people who did “assembly line monkey work” becoming lazy and less motivated to find a better paying job in the future, since they could just keep doing the monkey work instead of looking for better options"
Your missing 2 concerns.
1. The monkey work was necessary and needed to be done.
2. (More important) wouldn't you expect those that try extra hard to achieve more then just stability? Trying hard should attain class growth and/or wealth! So shouldnt *full time* work doing necessary but simple tasks earn you a stable living without extra frills?
I often find conservatives divide everyone into those who try hard and those who don't try at all with no middle ground for people who just want a stable family life. They don't want wealth enough to try barred, but they do want to eat and maybe feed their dependents. Is it not ok to want a middle life?
It is impossible to isolate the single variable of minimum wage from the rest of the economy and policies. We do not, and will not anytime soon, have the computing power to handle such a complex simulation + variable control. A consistent correlation using hindesight shows that every time min wage went up, gdp boomed. When it fell, gdp stagnated.... can you please explain how one could form a stronger connection between the 2 within reason?
Because, as you said, i have a red cup, i buy a plate to match. If i have a red cup, red spoon, red plate, but suddenly a brown moose, that destroys the entire matching scheme. That doesnt seem intelligently designed, at least not for the aestetic reason you have been pushing.
Many animals did end up with the same adaptation, but others did not, and remained other colors, with bigger weapons instead.
No shade taken. Quiting is irrelevant, even the active debates were free points. Winning a tough debate gives me a better rush then scoring some points. And losing a debate sets me up for more wins in the future. So i dont really get the rush for points. I do lol when i see FF debates get 3x the votes of any serious debate cause voting takes as much work as debating. Apparently i have to repeat every point raised or i didnt examine the arguments enough and it gets removed :(
Evolution didnt color match for some irrelevant artistic taste, whatever survives is good. Small animals that had to hide color blended. The moose instead got a pair of big weapons on his head for defense. Either one works.
Your claim is that their matching is intentional. Therefore everything should match.
With the guess and check method of nature, many different features would be present. As long as they keep the animal alive.
Even if it's after the voting time, i would appreciate any reviews, reactions, or judgements of this debate. I know it wont score us or you any points... but isnt it all about the arguments and truth in the end?
I appreciate the concern, and apologize for the light teasing :) All meant in good faith. With 1 week periods i should be able to have several off days to formulate a response so it shouldnt be a problem. This debate also wont require technical economic data research and should be a much more relaxed time compared to my previous rushed, highly technical debate.
Perhaps its because it is an interesting new debate that i am so anxious to get started :p
4x reminder of a single forfeit. Out of context incomplete sentence quotes. Asking for citation, then complaining (softer language) when the citation was provided. Many examples, most of which were called out in the debates. The list of what you believe my concerns are show that you havent been regestering much of what i have been typing.
Its hardly complaining when i admit its my fault for rushing to accept. I am able to own up to my errors, you should too. Also, highlighting my concern or seconding another's opinion is hardly the same as constantly nagging without prompting. You are the one that cant seem to move on.
If you want to do another debate that is fine, i will insist on longer debate/voting periods tho.
I communicated to you in pm when you asked me why i forfeited that i didnt realize the short time frame. I did succeed in posting them but it was quite uncomfortable.
2. It was hardly a courtesy or a formality. It was a sad attempt to again highlight my forfeit to score browny points for your conduct point. I found it strange your choice to highlight my forfeit in BOLD LETTERS initially, but the constant reminders were objectively yet another example or poor conduct. Sorta like a sore winner, only without the winning yet.
3. I referenced what happened when the market was allowed to set its own wages, conditions, etc without government laws like min wage. You asked for citations, then you blamed me after i provided the requested citations. Im sorry you got triggered or something by the term shame, but a duck is a duck and you should own up to your actions.
4. Regulated capitalism is not socialism. I was arguing for common sense regulations, not an abandonment of capitalism. I dont think you understood or properly addressed most of my arguments and ended up restating the end of your first post as your last post. I have no desire to enter a forum like infinite debate. With longer window i am confident my rebuttals could have been more organized. You took my opening statements even more out of context then i called you out on when i reread the debate afterwards. But from here forward let us leave it to the voters.
Any concerns regarding the rules i openly stated is my fault for being too fast to accept. I dont blame you for any of it. So stop being so sensitive. I am allowed to voice concerns before during or after. Geez.
5. You didnt address many of my claims, with much of what you did address was out of context 3 word useless quotes. With more time, you would have gotten a better response, but that's a negative for me if i didn't address something, just like your failures to address will count against you. This complaining is unbecoming.
Repeating decimals are rational numbers.
Whole integers can be represented as fractions or decimals.
cutting it close!
"It will become infinitely small".
You say as if its value is changing in time. But it isnt. That is how we describe it as we try to determine its value. But when we examine it as a whole, rather then what it is gradually becoming, we look at what it ultimately is. And ultimately it ends up at 1.
How many people can a criminal kill with a knife before being stopped or getting exhausted? How likely are the victims to be dead instead of injured from a knife? Now compare that to pistols, then clmpare both of those to large clip semi auto. Nothing we do will stop crime completely, but that doesnt mean we shouldnt try to minimize the body count. What is the fatality count of British stabbings? Point and click killings are the problem. Without guns, killing would be much more difficult, exhausting, and visceral.
As for gangs. 1) you meauring an absolute value rather then per capita. We have the land and population of all of western europe combined. (Italy still beats us on gang violence tho).
2. A bunch of tiny gangs dont hold a candle to something like a single mexican cartle with military weapons and control of of whole towns and provinces. The crime in america is greatly exxagerated by fear mongers like the POTUS. It certainly exists, but it is consistently going down. Economic justice may be a better solution to crime then more armed altercations or police enforcement.
My ineffective self defense and constitutional question were my original points. I feel like both were avoided.
In comparison, you have not provided any empirical data yourself
except i did substantiate the consistent correlation across decades within the debate. The gdp increase typically happened exactly 1 year AFTER min wage rises, and lasted for several years. Years of min wage decrease or stagnation also never reach the highs achieved ONLY after a rise in min wage. *across decades* starting with the year it was introduced.
Btw both advancing technology and any form of investing often require capital inflows... that would also likely be an accurate and logical correlation.
Cum hoc ergo surely applies in any individual case. But when the correlation repeats itself *consistently* across *decades*, it is a completely different thing.
Yeah, i highly doubt that gang claim:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/wef-countries-worst-organised-crime-problems-gangs-mafia-2017-11
And gangs would be much less of a problem if they didn't have so many guns. Where do you think they get their guns?
My main point was not the graph but my argument regarding how useless guns are in a self defense situation.
Technically speaking, most constitutional rights are rights from, not rights to. Like the right from unjust search and seizure, the right from persecution over religion or speech.
Also, most studies show you are in more danger if your armed as your gun is probably holstered with safety on as the mugger points his gun at you... and if its a mass shooting at an *unsuspecting* crowd... the gun wont help you much.
And then there is the question of the wording/meaning of the 2nd ammendement.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/23/17155596/gun-ownership-polls-safety-violence
Apples dont have ingredients. Apples are an ingredient. What % of an apple is pectin?
Apples rot. Do you think that is because of good germs? Will a rotting apple be healthy for you to eat? What does it mean to rot?
Didnt come across that way at all. 🍻
I dont understand what you mean by "what they are trying extra hard at".
I do understand what you are implying but with automation threatening everyone from warehouse and drivers to surgeons and accountants, what should they be trying at? Do you think ai cant code or repair other machines? Automation is a revolution which will require massive rethinking of our entire system.
But it isnt here yet, and their labor is still needed. Im talking about today's paycheck, not 20+ years in the future. What they are doing today is very necessary, they should be properly compensated for the value of their work, not devalued cause of the supply of their work or the tight margins with little wiggle room underwhich they live.
Im not talking about pectin, im talking about the apple. The apple is a lot more than just pectin and itnis delicious to many germs, good and bad. That is why apples rot, all kinds of germs are having a feast. Dont eat a rotting apple.
"Economics is reasoning whether it be propositional, "intuitive," tautological, etc. That's the reason my opening argument was constructed in that manner. My intention was not to create a contest over cited "data" but to rigorously challenge the consistency of our reasoning."
Thus you provided no data to back up the anecdote.
Meanwhile my intuitive conclusion that rising wages will increase spending demanded empirical data, which was provided, but was not "empirical enough".
Baloney
The relevancy was clearly stated. You claimed government involvement ruined prospects and people would be better negotiating or agreeing to their own wages. I showed what happens when the government is hands off and people "negotiated" their own terms.
There is no moment when minimum wage was isolated. But i did show consistent correlation across decades of its positive effects.
I do understand that i failed to reconnect it back to the poor in my quest to respond to every quote. However that technical error does not make any claim against the validity of my arguments.
More spending is obviously good for the poor who need to fix the car, get rid of mold, a new fridge or ac. All of which can boost savings and or productivity, just to name a few. Perhaps they may even be able to save for the future for they will age. This is, in addition to being benefitial to them, benefitial for all of us.
Increases to costs will be minimized by competition over their increased demand which will demand more hiring. And large portions of their costs will not rise, such as rent or medical which do not rely on low wage labor. I did mention these.
Does african have fire breathing lizards? And Asian dragons look nothing like western dragons. More like sea serpents then dinosaurs.
We have cave paintings of deer and bison. If there were dinosaurs around, wouldnt those be the primary subject of interest? Not bison?
The cambiran explosion took 10s or 100s of millions of years. That is very fast geologically speaking, but still a long time.
Also, to your dinosaur/birds argument. Dinosaurs existed for a long time. The Trex lived closer to us then it did to the stegosaurus. Plenty of time for birds to evolve and then be eaten. Just like dogs evolved from wolves, but wolves can still eat dogs.
This reminds me of the silly "why are there still monkeys" evolution complaint. Just because a group evolved doesnt mean every memeber of the previous group went extinct, or didnt have its own evolutionary path. Thats why we have more then 1 type of monkey, ape, feline, etc.
Thank you for your vote!
I completely agree with #2. Its a trap i try to avoid, but when it is used, its hard to not respond. Will try to avoid.
Your data criticism is very noted. My responses were disorganized, i did have a relatively short window to frame them in.
My only note would be that i did not intend to rely on the idea that the increased demand would completely outstrip price increase, but that it would at the least minimize it. Although surpassing it is a possibility. This was supplemented by the fact that a very substantial portion of costs (rent, also some others like medical) dont rely on wage labor for value and will not increase. This will also help wages outweight any price increases.
And thank you again!
Whoops, part of my post got cut off.
The top half was:
Me: Ive already said, in these comments, for people to please leave reviews even outside of the voting period for this exact reason. Ive been upfront since the start."
Athias: No you haven't. You complained; denied you complained; then continued to complain--even to the point of insinuating that a vote in my argument's favor was a possible "conspiracy." (Neglecting the fact that another vote was made in my argument's favor, but was dismissed on a "technicality.")
Me from post 23:
> @Ragnar, @bmdrocks21
Even if it's after the voting time, i would appreciate any reviews, reactions, or judgements of this debate. I know it wont score us or you any points... but isnt it all about the arguments and truth in the end?"
So... yes i have
> @Ragnar, @bmdrocks21
Even if it's after the voting time, i would appreciate any reviews, reactions, or judgements of this debate. I know it wont score us or you any points... but isnt it all about the arguments and truth in the end?
Thank you, and cheers!
As for the subject of the debate. You being right in a single, super welfare state situation still leaves minimum wage as benefitial in every other situation.
That aside, the fact that you had to betray your ideals to support your case shows how strong your actual beliefs are.
Ive already said, in these comments, for people to please leave reviews even outside of the voting period for this exact reason. Ive been upfront since the start.
Wanting reviews is not the same as selling out to score points. Do *you* really think we should raise taxes and pump up welfare as an alternative to minimum wage? Lol.
The only thing you taught me is to be more careful of the technical wording and rules of a debate due to the existence of dishonest people who simply want wins. Thank you.
Ill leave the rest to the voters/mods. Have a good day.
That is, if you win. Im still hoping for more voters.
Existence of alternatives doesnt negate this alternative. A welfare state can be an alternarive to a min wage, but an inferior one imo. The min wage can accomplish everything without raising taxes.
If you want to win based on technicalities, go ahead. I tried to debate in good faith, you ignored my invite and then structured these very poorly chosen rules instead. Were you hoping just your partner on the min wage thread would be the only vote by setting the minimum amount of time for a 5 round extremely technical debate? Thats sad.
In america, in our current situation, a min wage is necessary. A max welfare state is a valid alternative, but the laissez faire economics you believe in is not. Enjoy your technicality win. You know these votes will be so consequential in the long term (sarcasm). Knowledge will be.
So you wanted me to go on another tangent "demonstrating" common knowledge that you will then blame me for going off topic... are you trolling me?
That is a pathetic technicality. We may as well be arguing that people need to eat food to live and you say "they dont need food when they are full".
If they are already paid a living wage, or gov takes care of them then obviously they are full and ok. When they are not full on adequate wages, they need a minumum wage.
Out of 1st world nations, which nations are MOST socialist... the nations you used for your no minimum wage (a form of government regulation) examples.
Key word. MOST socialist. Not socialist.
Min wage is needed when people are underpaid.
Min wage is not needed when people make a living wage. Or when the governmeny handles most of their living expenses.
Not rebutted. Ignored. I was referring to the voters. Not you.
You didnt substantiate much of anything.
Who cares how they vote. If you put your partisanship on either side away, you will clearly see US CITIZENS without proper representation. That is objectively wrong
All germs feed on the same sugars. The apple does not select between germs. What are you talking about?
I didnt call those nations socialist. I said they are the *most* socialist out of the *1st world nations*. As you said, all western nations have some socialist policies. Those nations have the most socialist policies. They dont have a minimum wage because their citizens are already paid a living wage. And if anyone is underpaid the government takes care of them with welfare policies.
Combined with my previous posts about your reply it doesnt seem my arguments were considered at all. You certainly copy and pasted many of my points, but a long analysis isnt by default a comprehensive analysis.
My opponents only argument is the wage floor pricing out workers, yet my lowest unemployment argument is completely ignored. (Unemployment obviously not counting many people, mostly children, elderly which are a giant chunk of our population, + handicapped/injured). Anyone not looking for a job isnt going to suddenly jump for one with lower pay. Even if he refuted my BoP, which he didnt, he didnt establish at all his BoP of how min wage harms the poor considering almost no new jobs will be created with a lower wage... we dont have many more unemployed workers available.
I made several economic arguments regarding supply and demand but those are ignored in favor of supposed loaded words like trickle down... which is an actual economic policy, how is it loaded? Just because its an embarassing failure that contiues to be pushed doesnt.mean it cannot be mentioned.
Only 2 days of voting left. Voters needed!
Only 1 week window for votes provided. All votes appreciated!
Why did you read sarcasm in my greatest country in the world claims?
"one could also argue that this “Introduction of regulations” let to those people who did “assembly line monkey work” becoming lazy and less motivated to find a better paying job in the future, since they could just keep doing the monkey work instead of looking for better options"
Your missing 2 concerns.
1. The monkey work was necessary and needed to be done.
2. (More important) wouldn't you expect those that try extra hard to achieve more then just stability? Trying hard should attain class growth and/or wealth! So shouldnt *full time* work doing necessary but simple tasks earn you a stable living without extra frills?
I often find conservatives divide everyone into those who try hard and those who don't try at all with no middle ground for people who just want a stable family life. They don't want wealth enough to try barred, but they do want to eat and maybe feed their dependents. Is it not ok to want a middle life?
It is impossible to isolate the single variable of minimum wage from the rest of the economy and policies. We do not, and will not anytime soon, have the computing power to handle such a complex simulation + variable control. A consistent correlation using hindesight shows that every time min wage went up, gdp boomed. When it fell, gdp stagnated.... can you please explain how one could form a stronger connection between the 2 within reason?
If it's a 6 month baby in the womb, does that mean it's 1 year old 3 months after birth?
We can agree to disagree :)
Done
I appreciate the link, definitely jam out later. But RM has me blocked and im not sure if responding even has a purpose :/
Wow, that table got all kinds of messed up on my screen.
Sources for R1 Con in order of appearance.
1. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally
2. https://sciencecouncil.org/about-science/our-definition-of-a-scientist/
3. https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=4887
4. https://www.aamc.org/what-we-do/mission-areas/medical-research/physician-scientist
5. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190731171722.htm
6. https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/full/10.1164/rccm.201110-1806ED
over the character limit by 1300 :( let me see if I can wittle it down
Because, as you said, i have a red cup, i buy a plate to match. If i have a red cup, red spoon, red plate, but suddenly a brown moose, that destroys the entire matching scheme. That doesnt seem intelligently designed, at least not for the aestetic reason you have been pushing.
Many animals did end up with the same adaptation, but others did not, and remained other colors, with bigger weapons instead.
No shade taken. Quiting is irrelevant, even the active debates were free points. Winning a tough debate gives me a better rush then scoring some points. And losing a debate sets me up for more wins in the future. So i dont really get the rush for points. I do lol when i see FF debates get 3x the votes of any serious debate cause voting takes as much work as debating. Apparently i have to repeat every point raised or i didnt examine the arguments enough and it gets removed :(
Evolution didnt color match for some irrelevant artistic taste, whatever survives is good. Small animals that had to hide color blended. The moose instead got a pair of big weapons on his head for defense. Either one works.
Your claim is that their matching is intentional. Therefore everything should match.
With the guess and check method of nature, many different features would be present. As long as they keep the animal alive.
Or crosses... but you only find that out after debating with them. Those 2 combined messed up all of my early debates.
Even if it's after the voting time, i would appreciate any reviews, reactions, or judgements of this debate. I know it wont score us or you any points... but isnt it all about the arguments and truth in the end?
Thank you, and cheers!
I appreciate the concern, and apologize for the light teasing :) All meant in good faith. With 1 week periods i should be able to have several off days to formulate a response so it shouldnt be a problem. This debate also wont require technical economic data research and should be a much more relaxed time compared to my previous rushed, highly technical debate.
Perhaps its because it is an interesting new debate that i am so anxious to get started :p
4x reminder of a single forfeit. Out of context incomplete sentence quotes. Asking for citation, then complaining (softer language) when the citation was provided. Many examples, most of which were called out in the debates. The list of what you believe my concerns are show that you havent been regestering much of what i have been typing.
Its hardly complaining when i admit its my fault for rushing to accept. I am able to own up to my errors, you should too. Also, highlighting my concern or seconding another's opinion is hardly the same as constantly nagging without prompting. You are the one that cant seem to move on.
If you want to do another debate that is fine, i will insist on longer debate/voting periods tho.
I communicated to you in pm when you asked me why i forfeited that i didnt realize the short time frame. I did succeed in posting them but it was quite uncomfortable.
2. It was hardly a courtesy or a formality. It was a sad attempt to again highlight my forfeit to score browny points for your conduct point. I found it strange your choice to highlight my forfeit in BOLD LETTERS initially, but the constant reminders were objectively yet another example or poor conduct. Sorta like a sore winner, only without the winning yet.
3. I referenced what happened when the market was allowed to set its own wages, conditions, etc without government laws like min wage. You asked for citations, then you blamed me after i provided the requested citations. Im sorry you got triggered or something by the term shame, but a duck is a duck and you should own up to your actions.
4. Regulated capitalism is not socialism. I was arguing for common sense regulations, not an abandonment of capitalism. I dont think you understood or properly addressed most of my arguments and ended up restating the end of your first post as your last post. I have no desire to enter a forum like infinite debate. With longer window i am confident my rebuttals could have been more organized. You took my opening statements even more out of context then i called you out on when i reread the debate afterwards. But from here forward let us leave it to the voters.
Any concerns regarding the rules i openly stated is my fault for being too fast to accept. I dont blame you for any of it. So stop being so sensitive. I am allowed to voice concerns before during or after. Geez.
5. You didnt address many of my claims, with much of what you did address was out of context 3 word useless quotes. With more time, you would have gotten a better response, but that's a negative for me if i didn't address something, just like your failures to address will count against you. This complaining is unbecoming.