Amazing, I knew I have seen this page out of the “RWDW Elements of Style” before:
“What he offers is a report making some strong assertions, and citing an impressive array of research papers. What you aren’t supposed to notice is that the research papers don’t actually support the assertions.
In some cases we’re talking about artful misrepresentation of what the papers say, drawing angry protests from the authors. In other cases the misdirection is more subtle.”
for any other link-impaired or link-disdaning persons, such as myself, here is what EMichael is talking about:
Paul Krugman looked at Ryan’s case that Medicare and food stamps reduce incentives to work, and found that the papers Ryan cites do not in fact support his view.
This would not surprise me. The Ryans and the right in general to not care much about logic or mere honesty. The words are put there entirely to mislead the ignorant… which includes most of the press.
I’ve been spamming around my notion that a higher minimum wage — IF STILL LOWER than the market would be willing to pay due to labor market conditions: I call this a “DISCOUNT” wage — will more likely reduce spending on higher priced products
— if the latter products are higher priced due to squeezing the consumer for more than the seller would be willing to accept due to labor market conditions; I call this a “PREMIUM” wage —
— the buyers presumably preferring to trim spending where they are being somewhat skinned in favor of keeping up consumption of what are still relative bargains.
I just go back the answer below from a very respectable business columnist at a progressive newspaper:
“It’s a reasonable hypothesis, but we have dozens of studies that show higher min wages tend to depress consumption at the low end of the consumer price scale, not at the luxury end.”
Anybody here got any idea to what he is referring — and where I might find such. I hope you guys and gals here will be as instinctively helpful as the folks on my poker forum. 🙂
i wish i did not sound so partisan above. there is plenty of lack of logic, bordering on dishonest, in the Left. but the Right is far more blatant about it, bordering on insanity.
“dozens of studies” are a dime a dozen. the first thing any researcher in economics asks is “what does my boss want to prove?” the study writes itself.
if employers asked instead, “what is the decent thing to do?” higher wages would be forthcoming. since employers are psychologically incapable of doing this, there needs to be some government balancing of the labor market, with pro union legislation, minimum wage laws, and anti corruption laws.
the New Deal ushered in an era of higher wages as well as unheard of prosperity for the rich. but they will never get the connection. any more than the prize bull understands that it’s the farmer that feeds him.
Coberly,
I’d still like to know exactly to which he is referring — I like to have things hammered unassailably in place — helps when you are trying to win over boatloads of people. What can I say to this objection?
The guy is good and sincere, if occasionally missing pieces of the puzzle — especially when it comes to paying decently. Of course, our progressive players are forever missing key pieces — like wages are only a fraction of the consumer’s price when they do their 101 charts — or even attack 101 charts — too often seem to notice what should be the most obvious pitches.
HERE IS the answer from the columnist — we’ll see. Sigh of relief it’s Neumark — I can count on disagreeing — should be interesting:
“David Neumark and a colleague, working on a study for the Federal Reserve, did a survey of all the studies out there and summed them up. Here is his summary. You can find a link to his website, and eventually the study itself, in the text of this youtube.”
Appealing to “authority” is a well worn “argument” which does not make it a valid argument. Appeal to authority leads to a most common “fallacy of logic”.
Often enfdured while chained down to watch Fox News.
Amazing, I knew I have seen this page out of the “RWDW Elements of Style” before:
“What he offers is a report making some strong assertions, and citing an impressive array of research papers. What you aren’t supposed to notice is that the research papers don’t actually support the assertions.
In some cases we’re talking about artful misrepresentation of what the papers say, drawing angry protests from the authors. In other cases the misdirection is more subtle.”
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/04/flimflam-the-next-generation/
for any other link-impaired or link-disdaning persons, such as myself, here is what EMichael is talking about:
Paul Krugman looked at Ryan’s case that Medicare and food stamps reduce incentives to work, and found that the papers Ryan cites do not in fact support his view.
This would not surprise me. The Ryans and the right in general to not care much about logic or mere honesty. The words are put there entirely to mislead the ignorant… which includes most of the press.
Help!
I’ve been spamming around my notion that a higher minimum wage — IF STILL LOWER than the market would be willing to pay due to labor market conditions: I call this a “DISCOUNT” wage — will more likely reduce spending on higher priced products
— if the latter products are higher priced due to squeezing the consumer for more than the seller would be willing to accept due to labor market conditions; I call this a “PREMIUM” wage —
— the buyers presumably preferring to trim spending where they are being somewhat skinned in favor of keeping up consumption of what are still relative bargains.
I just go back the answer below from a very respectable business columnist at a progressive newspaper:
“It’s a reasonable hypothesis, but we have dozens of studies that show higher min wages tend to depress consumption at the low end of the consumer price scale, not at the luxury end.”
Anybody here got any idea to what he is referring — and where I might find such. I hope you guys and gals here will be as instinctively helpful as the folks on my poker forum. 🙂
i wish i did not sound so partisan above. there is plenty of lack of logic, bordering on dishonest, in the Left. but the Right is far more blatant about it, bordering on insanity.
denis
“dozens of studies” are a dime a dozen. the first thing any researcher in economics asks is “what does my boss want to prove?” the study writes itself.
if employers asked instead, “what is the decent thing to do?” higher wages would be forthcoming. since employers are psychologically incapable of doing this, there needs to be some government balancing of the labor market, with pro union legislation, minimum wage laws, and anti corruption laws.
the New Deal ushered in an era of higher wages as well as unheard of prosperity for the rich. but they will never get the connection. any more than the prize bull understands that it’s the farmer that feeds him.
Coberly,
I’d still like to know exactly to which he is referring — I like to have things hammered unassailably in place — helps when you are trying to win over boatloads of people. What can I say to this objection?
The guy is good and sincere, if occasionally missing pieces of the puzzle — especially when it comes to paying decently. Of course, our progressive players are forever missing key pieces — like wages are only a fraction of the consumer’s price when they do their 101 charts — or even attack 101 charts — too often seem to notice what should be the most obvious pitches.
HERE IS the answer from the columnist — we’ll see. Sigh of relief it’s Neumark — I can count on disagreeing — should be interesting:
“David Neumark and a colleague, working on a study for the Federal Reserve, did a survey of all the studies out there and summed them up. Here is his summary. You can find a link to his website, and eventually the study itself, in the text of this youtube.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhM4fddeF4Q
Me again.
Couldn’t get anything out of the 56 second youtube — nor could I find anything relevant on Neumark’s website. So, now I’m not worried about it.
Anybody?
Appealing to “authority” is a well worn “argument” which does not make it a valid argument. Appeal to authority leads to a most common “fallacy of logic”.
Often enfdured while chained down to watch Fox News.
Wow, Angry Bear blog is now like a speeding bullet. As the kid at Mazda used to say, “Zoom, zoom, zoom. Good work techno Bears, who ever you are.