SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Center for American Progress reports:
Think a higher minimum wage is a job killer? Think again: The states that raised their minimum wages on January 1 have seen higher employment growth since then than the states that kept theirs at the same rate.
The minimum wage went up in 13 states Arizona, Connecticut, Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington either thanks to automatic increases in line with inflation or new legislation, as Ben Wolcott reports in his analysis at the Center for Economic and Policy Research. The average change in employment for those states over the first five months of the year as compared with the last five of 2013 is 0.99 percent, while the average for all remaining states is 0.68 percent.
Digging deeper, all but one of those states are experiencing increases in employment, and nine of them have seen growth above the median rate.
(Score: 4, Informative) by tathra on Friday July 04 2014, @04:57PM
reductio ad absurdum doesn't help your case, at best it proves that you dont have any actual facts to back up your side in a debate.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Friday July 04 2014, @05:26PM
Or that the opponent has a silly argument which can be illustrated by a reductio ad absurdum argument.
(Score: 1) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 04 2014, @05:38PM
> Or that the opponent has a silly argument which can be illustrated by a reductio ad absurdum argument.
Sure, it can show that, when the reductio fully encompasses the entire system. In this case, frojack is just demonstrating his own limited understanding of the system.
(Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Friday July 04 2014, @10:21PM
But it can't. You can't illustrate that doing something to a ridiculous degree means doing that thing sensibly won't work. Raising the speed limit by 5 mph MIGHT produce more benefits than costs. That cannot be proved false by considering raising the speed limit by 500 mph.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 2) by khallow on Friday July 04 2014, @11:44PM
What is a sensible increase in the minimum wage? The typical argument is that more is better without any consideration of the degree. If you're going to grant that there's a certain optimal level of minimum wage, then your society might already be past that optimal level. I gather most minimum wage proponents aren't prepared to consider that.
(Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Saturday July 05 2014, @04:54PM
What is a sensible increase in the minimum wage?
It depends.
What's a sensible amount of food to eat for lunch? It depends. The fact that eating 10,000 calories for lunch every day would kill you of morbid obesity does not mean that eating a sensible amount of food for lunch is a bad idea. And people who promote eating lunch are not saying that any amount of food for lunch is a good thing.
The typical argument is that more is better without any consideration of the degree.
If you mean they don't mention the amount. Then no indeed. A sensible amount is assumed. They are having a discussion not writing legalese to prevent jackasses doing reductio ad absurdum.
If you mean they are claiming that any amount of minimum wage rise is good, then that's wrong. It's a straw man on your part.
If you had a compelling argument against rises in the minimum wage, or better still data, you wouldn't have to present fallacious straw man or reductio ad absurdam arguments.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 2) by khallow on Sunday July 06 2014, @12:20AM
So it depends? Reductio ad absurdum applies then for one can say "it depends" to a factor of ten or more increase in minimum wage as to say, a 1% increase in minimum wage.
(Score: 0, Troll) by frojack on Friday July 04 2014, @05:36PM
reductio ad absurdum is a far more valid argument than a very narrow study done with no understanding of economics over a short period of time with cherry picked examples.
What's the matter sweetie, did you flunk out of logic/philosophy classes?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 04 2014, @07:04PM
> reductio ad absurdum is a far more valid argument than a very narrow study done with no understanding of economics
Two stupids don't make a smart.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday July 04 2014, @08:39PM
You've definitely proven your point with that devastating riposte.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 04 2014, @09:16PM
> You've definitely proven your point with that devastating riposte.
That's right, you go ahead and make yourself feel better by flaming an AC.
Seems like whenever you see a stupid, your solution is to just keep adding more stupid.
(Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Friday July 04 2014, @10:23PM
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday July 04 2014, @11:40PM
reductio ad absurdum is FAR from a fallacious argument category.
First recognized and studied in classical Greek philosophy for example in Aristotle's Prior Analytics), this technique has been used throughout history in both formal mathematical and philosophical reasoning, as well as informal debate.
Back to school.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 05 2014, @01:35AM
> reductio ad absurdum is FAR from a fallacious argument category.
Too bad that's not what you were doing.
What you've done is known as a strawman argument. [wikipedia.org] A favorite of the simple-minded because they themselves are so easy to fool, that they fool themselves into thinking they've made a valid argument.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday July 05 2014, @03:36AM
I was accused of reductio ad absurdum, which was exactly what it was, and now you want to move the goal post?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 05 2014, @06:25AM
> I was accused of reductio ad absurdum, which was exactly what it was, and now you want to move the goal post?
I didn't accuse you of that. This isn't a discussion between you and the world where the world is just one person.
But it is unsurprising you would try to apply that illogic in your defense. You see stupid and you think you can fix it by adding more stupid.