The Rules of Debate

[The Thinker]

You realize that rising wages are part of what CAUSES inflation, right? That was what I was explaining earlier. Raise wages, you raise the cost of goods. That means you pay more for an item. That is inflation. get it?

also paying the lower end more, means that the middle will want more too, since they are now being paid "less" because of the rise at the low end. So wages "trickle up" the ladder and everyone gets paid more and everything costs more. So no, you don't "take from the rich and give to the poor"

The middle will not necessarily want more. They might be content. I'm middle class and I'd have no problem if someone working at Walmart made $15 an hour. I'd actually like it because it would mean that my tax dollars wouldn't have to subsidize their food and healthcare costs, which is what happens when you pay people such little money they can't afford to eat and require food stamps.

[The Thinker]

No, polling is belief based data and your scare quotes are unwarranted. Sparko wrapped scare quotes around the word scientific because more Democrats were talked to than Republicans and the implication is clear that the poll was not scientific which is just... no.

Honestly the bigger takeaway here is that, while the poll contained 26% people who self identify as Republic, Trump got 27%. That is really interesting. Did really only 1% of the 33% of the poll that were independents think trump did better or is it more likely that plenty of self identified Republicans just didn't like their candidates terrible terrible debate performance? The other scores are really neat too

The problem here is that many of us have become so partisan that we root for our team no matter what, and so many republican or republican-leaning people cannot admit a loss because they feel they have to be constant cheer leaders for their team.

It is to quote Donald Trump, "sad."

[Zymologist]

I didn't watch the debate. Is it possible for both of them to lose?

[Raphael]

I didn't watch the debate. Is it possible for both of them to lose?

Only if Micky Mouse does particularly well in the write-in votes.

[One Bad Pig]

So? This is about what what people believe. Their beliefs(and everything that goes into them) are subjective, but that they believe what they do isn't. Given that the point of polling is know the frequency of a belief in a larger population the problem isn't this subjectivity v objectivity, but other things.

https://onlinecourses.science.psu.ed...ed%20FINAL.pdf

What makes a poll scientific can, largely, be found in that pdf (3,5 pages) if you're so inclined.

Do you not believe in the basic premise of polls?

Polls can often be manipulated to bias the result towards the desired outcome through a host of factors: the wording of the question asked, the wording of the choices presented for answers, the population polled, etc. Then statisticians can mine the results for the most favorable presentation. This poll seems relatively straightforward, but could have been manipulated by targeting, say, an area where the Republicans are statistically likely to be NeverTrumpers, or the Democrats are statistcally likely to have voted for Hillary (or, conversely, for Bernie), etc. As far as election polls go, it is not uncommon for the actual votes cast to be surprisingly different from what polling data had indicated.

[One Bad Pig]

It's data you gather scientifically, as opposed from simply feeling X vs Y, or unscientific online polls. Obviously the content here is to gather what people feel, it's the methodology for how you collect that data that matters. Duh.

It's the very methodology of the poll which Sparko, et al. are taking issue (namely, that the distribution of contributors weighs heavily Democrat)!

Online polls are less scientific merely in that they have a more obvious selection bias.

[JimL]

well they didn't seem to have any "undecided" in the poll. But regardless, it hardly seems "scientific" to have such a lopsided pool of people. All it shows is that republicans think Trump won and Democrats think Hillary won. no real surprise there.

And independents think Hillary won. Theres Trumps problem!

[rogue06]

I didn't watch the debate. Is it possible for both of them to lose?

Yes.

us-flag-small.gif 000000000000vrs.jpg us-flag-small.gif

[JimL]

You realize that rising wages are part of what CAUSES inflation, right? That was what I was explaining earlier. Raise wages, you raise the cost of goods. That means you pay more for an item. That is inflation. get it?

Wrong, raise wages and lower profits and there is no problem with rising inflation. The problem is that profits have been rising for decades but wages have been stagnant. Just because people have more money in their pockets doesn't mean they will be willing to pay more for goods, so the prices aren't going to go up just because business costs go up. Business will just have to redistribute some of their profits and the economy will be much better for everyone.

also paying the lower end more, means that the middle will want more too, since they are now being paid "less" because of the rise at the low end. So wages "trickle up" the ladder and everyone gets paid more and everything costs more. So no, you don't "take from the rich and give to the poor"

The rich are only rich because they are greedily hoarding all the profits instead of sharing it fairly with the producers of that wealth. Thats one reason that unions are essential, without them the powers that be will further enrich themselves and their stockholders and pay the laborers as as little as possible.

[stfoskey15]

Yep. This liberal fantasy that you can artificially increase the cost of labor without it having any negative economic impact is baffling, especially when it has been documented time and time and time and time again that raising the minimum wage increases the price of goods and services and decreases employment!

Of course we are dealing with low-information dullards who think that a 2% decrease in employment is somehow a net gain (look at how many of the "usual suspects" "Amen'd" that post. )

It's simpl arithmetic. Let's say a fictional place has 100 persons making that place's minimum wage of $7.00/hr. So that population makes a total of $700/hr. Now let's say the minimum wage increases by 10% to $7.70. However, two persons got laid off, so there are now 98 persons making $7.70/hr. That means the population makes $754.60/hr (98*7.70=754.60). That is a $54.60 increase for the entire population, or an average of $0.546/person/our.
That doesn't factor in inflation, but as starlight mentioned, not everyone gets a raise, so inflation will probably be les than 10% (or even les than the 7.8% average wage increase wen acounting for job loss). Does sumone have a figure for the average inflation after a minimum wage increase?

[Starlight]

Does sumone have a figure for the average inflation after a minimum wage increase?

The Effect of the Minimum Wage on Prices surveys the various studies on the subject and concludes:

Despite the different methodologies, data periods and data sources, most studies found that a 10% US minimum wage increase raises food prices by no more than 4% and overall prices by no more than 0.4%. This is a small effect.

I found that article via this page which gives a good discussion about studies on the minimum wage, and what is known.

[demi-conservative]

Because they accurately describe Trump's pathetic performance, his inability to make a coherent answer to basic questions he should have prepared about.

More like they just say what you want to hear

Even members of his inner circle have been leaking to the media that Trump blew it.

Is this like all the 'leaks' from inner circle that Trump keeps blowing stuff, 'intervention', and so on??

And then....next post, 'CNN poll was scientific'. Yeah, you just wanna hear what you wanna hear

[demi-conservative]

I didn't watch the debate. Is it possible for both of them to lose?

Well, people could vote Gary Johns- oh wait

[Starlight]

Well, people could vote Gary Johns- oh wait

Better to vote for Jill Stein really. Getting above 5% qualifies a party for federal funding, and will thus help make 3rd party voices heard in future. Johnson seems set to get that, while Stein needs help getting there. Either way your vote will show up in the overall numbers as a protest vote against the horrific candidates the two main parties have foisted on the electorate.

[JimL]

Better to vote for Jill Stein really. Getting above 5% qualifies a party for federal funding, and will thus help make 3rd party voices heard in future. Johnson seems set to get that, while Stein needs help getting there. Either way your vote will show up in the overall numbers as a protest vote against the horrific candidates the two main parties have foisted on the electorate.

I think that would be a big mistake for progessives. Jill Stein has absolutely zero chance of becoming president and a vote for her would be a vote for Trump. I know that for some reason you don't like Clinton, but she is basically running on B. Sanders platform, a progressive platform. A Trump presidency would be a disaster for this country, for the people of this country. Now I know that you don't live here star, so you don't have to worry about that, but, those of us who do, don't want to have to suffer the consequences of a Trump presidency.

I'm curious to know what it is that you dislike so much about H. Clinton. Has the conservative propaganda infected New Zealand ears?