iNow

I’d love to have some beers with you. Whiskey too if the conversation was going well. I’m not oblivious to the points you’re making. I’m clear on where you’re coming from and what you’re suggesting. It makes intuitive sense. This is simply one of those situations where your personal anecdotes and intuitions and common sense thinking is failing you... and yet you’re letting those otherwise super helpful human mental shortcuts stand in the way of you supporting meaningful improvements to MILLIONS of lives. This isn’t just academic, though the academics are clearly on my side. At some point, we must consciously choose to abandon the conclusions we’ve arrived upon based on comfortable misunderstandings and common myths. Cheers, friend.

Appreciate your honesty

From your link: No offense bud, but you’re really making this too easy for me.

So, just so I’m clear, your intent with that reply was to further reinforce my point, the one you quoted?

Why are you conflating rape with sexual harassment and assault? So what... like 2 in a million? Maybe 10? 1,604? Maybe 292,153 in a million? I really don’t know what you think because you’re being extremely unclear and quickly retreating from essentially all of your posts when even gently challenged to support them with anything more than scat from a bull.

Jesus man. You’re really reaching now

Which experts? Got a link? This isn’t jazz. Stop focusing on the notes I don’t play and read the words I do. Maybe try answering the actual GD questions I’m asking instead of dancing around them and evading. You either have a valid point that’s supportable or you’re inventing fictions and arguing a personal opinion.

The logic here is rather twisted, to the point of being fallacious and nonsequitur. There is no change to whether or not an inexperienced individual is being allowed or not allowed to work. They’re simply going to be paid a wage more aligned with a commonly accepted minimum when they do. I’m assuming nothing. I’m relying on the preponderance of evidence which demonstrates their underlying premises and consequent claims to be mistaken to the point of fictional.

The assumption here seems to be that higher minimum wage means it’s harder for teenagers to get that first job because there will be fewer jobs available. That’s nonsense since job gains outpace job losses in this scenario. I’m sure there are very many fine people at the Frazer institute, but given their heavy funding from corporations and special interests it’s unsurprising they’d publish a flawed fluff piece like this.

Plz note my edit made while you were composing your reply

To be fair, I’d like to know which people specifically, especially since it underlies this entire thread and it’s ridiculous poll I’m a fair man, though. Let me make my point another way by asking a simple and rather straight forward question. Out of every million times a woman comes forward about being sexually harassed, abused, or assaulted, precisely how many of those million are you saying represent contrived accusations, lies, and falsehoods?

Still awaiting even a single citation which confirms your premise as valid.

Thank you for answering, but is this another WAG, or is there analysis to support the assertion that the region would benefit more from UBI over higher federal wage minimums for the workers living there?

I’m sure a transcript exists

Nobody’s arguing that false accusations aren’t even made or that people aren’t on rare occasions punished unfairly. That barely ever happens, though. Most claims are true and based on actual events. In fact, what’s FAR more likely to happen is that victims fail to report or bring forward their experience to authorities... not that they make up something which never happened. That’s a defense common among abusers.

Do you also think the UBI should be adjusted and differently applied across regions? If not, why not? Extremely

Let’s dial back the emotion a bit. My suspicion is you heard something different than what was intended or actually conveyed. Anyone who says there’s no room for doubt in 100% of cases is an idiot. Most people say our default position should be to believe them, and to validate their claims as much as we can before dismissing them. But that’s not what you and others are describing here. We’d be able to clear this up really quite quickly if citations were provided. Nobody has, at least none which support the strawman being argued against. I wonder why.

Our default position should be to assume they’re telling the truth. That’s not the same as saying belief should be automatic 100% of the time with zero doubt whatsoever. Why so many otherwise very smart people struggle with this simple nuance boggles the mind.

Hard to say, but at least I’m putting forth supporting resources for my claims. I’ll just note also that you completely ignored the other analyses and meta analyses which further supported the conclusion described.

Thanks for saving me the time. +1

This is the part to which I’m referring: “should be automatically 100% believed without doubt.”

I challenge you to provide even one citation supporting this absurd comment.

https://www.vox.com/2019/7/2/20678821/15-federal-minimum-wage-increase-study But there I go again, making a moral argument 🙄

This comparison with guests at a cocktail party sums it up well for me: https://thetriad.thebulwark.com/p/this-cult-is-ruining-peoples-lives

Seen through this lens, it makes even more sense. https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/news/hr-news/pages/federal-minimum-wage-increase-good-for-business-cost-too-much.aspx