While it is true that correlation is not causation, correlation is evidence of causation. Real scientists understand that first you develop a coherent hypothesis, then you test it. If the test results are consistent with your hypothesis, that is evidence for your hypothesis.
In this case the hypothesis is that spending to fight poverty reduces poverty. The evidence is consistent with this hypothesis.
EE demonstrated that economic conditions affect poverty. That doesn’t show that culture won’t play a role. It does refute that hypothesis that only culture is important. And furthermore it suggests that there is no change in culture or differences in culture that adequately explain changes in poverty across time and space. The burden of proof is on culture-only advocates to explain this sort of data pattern in a specific way, as opposed to a hypothetical one.
UltraVires’s discussion contained many assertions, but no facts. I thank the Evil Economist for his respect for empirical reality and recommend that others emulate him.
Don’t just assume you know how the world is. Study it and measure it. Don’t just weave hypothetical stories that might explain the data on Earth-htraE. Specify what cultural changes allegedly led to what outcomes and provide data for each.
Then why in the world did you make a blanket statement condemning those people you seem to think highly of? You called them all low class workers, and that the people paid more are higher class.
By your own admission, minimum wage workers don’t necessarily fit into your low-class worker stereotype. You saw with your own two eyes that there are minimum wage employees who are good workers. So your little maxim is obviously untrue.
So, rather than what we’d expect, that your experience would cause you to update your worldview, you make special exceptions for the people you worked with who were good workers, and then continue to hold to your maxim that minimum wage workers are bad workers.
And, no, I have no idea why your pizza place wasn’t also constantly hiring more and firing the bad ones. Worker shortage?
The key question when it comes to spending isn’t whether spending marginally improves a situation vs. no spending on that particular problem. It’s whether more spending makes it better than current spending. Sure, if we had no welfare programs we’d have more poverty. But is there any evidence that more spending will reduce poverty? We have similar debates over education. Of course public spending on education improves outcomes vs. no public schools at all, but increases in public spending have no correlated with improvements in outcomes.
Let’s face it: Kasich is a wingnut, not a moderate. It’s only sharing the stage with Trump and Cruz that makes him look like a moderate (and a grownup).
While inartful and not very PC, he’s right. Anti-discrimination laws are meant to protect the rights of citizens to participate in the economic life of the country on an equal basis. That’s why anti-discrimination laws only prohibit certain kinds of discrimination in very specific cases. Things like housing, employment, and public accomodations. Anti-discrimination laws are not meant to protect people from getting their feelings hurt.
True, but the issue Kasich was referring to specifically was things like bakers not wanting to make a cake for you, or wedding photographers not wanting to work for you. And he also urged those business owners to pray about it. He’s not defending their actions, he’s defending their rights to be jerks, and last I checked, there was no law against being a jerk, even if you are being a jerk to people for being different. The laws only protect people from discrimination that results in substantial harm, such as not being able to get a job, or rent an apartment, or get lunch anywhere. At least at the federal level. States do sometimes pass laws preventing butthurt discrimination, and that’s their prerogative as long as it doesn’t interfere with the 1st amendment.
In every article I’ve read about a gay couple being denied marriage services, there was never an issue with them getting those services elsewhere. They were just hurt. Which does not really fall under the scope of federal law and only falls under the scope of some state laws. In many cases, the couple had no recourse other than bad press for the perpetrator. Welcome to the club, those of us in interfaith marriages have been dealing with that for quite some time.
So isn’t the right’s demands that they not be “forced” to make cakes for gay wedding or perform gay weddings (which nobody has ever been forced to do) something they should get over?
We’re certainly heading in that direction. The assurance that churches won’t be required to perform gay marriages sure feels like a “for now” situation. But yeah, if it’s the law, we have to get over it or find a new line of work that doesn’t intersect with gay marriage. I have no issues, I’ll perform tech support for a gay marriage, no problem. If I get back into pizzas I’ll be happy to cater a gay reception too. But I’m not religious.
Government officials have no rights in the conduct of their job, IMO. It was kinda funny seeing Democrats for the first time demanding that a public employee do their job. Usually they consider that kinda optional.
If they were discriminating, that’s bad. If they just didn’t feel like it, well that’s not a firing offense. They have rights! They aren’t slaves! If a government worker wants to take a 15 minute break every hour no matter how long the line is, well, those gay and interracial couples will just have to wait!
I got jokes today, sorry. Not very good ones i suspect.
Gee, what next…literacy tests for marriage licenses? Straight couples just have to spell “cat”, gay couples have to recite when the Edict of Nantes was revoked? :dubious:
