Ok, you said “George is an atheist, and most atheists are liberals. So George is probably a liberal. So then, George most likely supports increased welfare benefits, since most liberals support increase welfare benefits.”
I don’t consider myself stupid so I think we are simply having a communication problem. I don’t understand the question because nothing in your statement is hard to understand, there are no stated givens with which we can extrapolate more information. So when you ask me “what is the conclusion of this passage” I would just restate the passage, or abbreviate it to “George is likely to support increases for welfare benefits”. If that isn’t the answer you are looking for than I really don’t understand the exercise.
I am not sure whether this is a mere communication problem yet.
The passage is an example of reasoning–it has premises, and those premises are intended by the passage’s (pretend, hypothetical) author to lead toward a conclusion. The conclusion is one of the thoughts contained in the text itself. (It’s not one of the more confusing cases where the conclusion is left unstated.) When “abbreviating” the passage, you zeroed in on just one of those thoughts. What is it that led you to that thought as aparticularly appropriate way to express some kind of “abbreviation” of the passage?
If I’d given you the following passage instead, would you have been able to find the conclusion?
Or does that also seem to you like just a series of things which are simply stated, with no conclusion being offered?
Unfortunately, I won’t be able to reply again for a couple of hours.
(Based on what you’ve said, I think it’s a kind of communication problem, in that I think you know what a conclusion is, but don’t know what “conclusion” means. You’re definitely not alone in this…)
I’m now just interested in what answer you are looking for that you think is so obvious. Without the context of even what class you are teaching it’s quite possible I don’t know what “conclusion” is supposed to mean.
The answer is George most likely favors increased welfare benefits. The class is critical thinking. i can explain more when im at something other than my kindle.
Okay, I started a new thread here. The much briefer answer, though, is that “George most likely supports increased welfare benefits” is the one claim in the passage which all the rest of the passage is intended to give supporting reasons for.
(Rereading our conversation, it appears to me you were thinking I was asking what conclusion should be drawn from the passage, rather than which statement in the passage is the one which its author thinks should be drawn from all the other statements in the passage. Does that sound about right?)
And the answer to the attorney question is that an attorney will read over the documents and give you advice or warnings - like “this mortgage has a prepay penalty” or “this mortgage doesn’t have a cap on its balloon.” They may also make sure title is clear, although the closing company usually has a title company for that that is insured.
You can do that yourself with some patience and a little understanding of legalese. But as you pointed out, not everyone has the comprehension skills to deal with plain English, much less contractual information.
Most people who got screwed on mortgages however, didn’t get screwed by gotcha clauses in their mortgage. A balloon isn’t a gotcha clause, that’s something to have your mortgage rep explain to you. Having someone foreclose on secured property when you don’t pay your mortgage isn’t a gotcha either - that’s why its a mortgage. The only thing that keeps that from happening is to only take out half as much mortgage as you can afford, save like anything for a rainy day, when it starts to drizzle- take some immediate action, and have the good luck never to get caught in a downpour.
When I was younger and stupider, I bought a house with my first husband, when he left, I was in quite a fix because I didn’t have a mortgage I could afford. So I got a roommate. And I had the heat set in the house at 62 degrees and wore my coat indoors. And I sold my car and bought a bus pass. And I ate a lot of eggs, rice, beans, frozen vegetables and jiffy cornbread mix. And eventually, things started to free up (because I paid off outstanding bills, not because anyone handed me more money) and I started to eat better and set the heat up a bit. Two years after that, I got a decent raise.
No, you are correct. If a company is not paying enough then no one would take that job. There aren’t chemical engineers and corporate lawyers working for only $10 per hour because no one with the credentials would take those job. Companies would happily pay that little but there is absolutely no demand for it.
It’s not about wanting to make this guys life difficult it’s just simple economics. If the minimum wage is increased then employers demand less workers and people making minimum wage will then be laid off. If all four people in a family are making $8/hour then the minimum wage is increased to $10 and 2 of them a laid off that does not put them in any better of a situation. That is why the minimum wage is not $15+/hour, it just doesn’t work and would make it worse for everyone.
Economics is a science and has laws that should (and really need to) be followed. People do not try to counter the law of gravity but they (politicians mostly) often try to go against the rules of economics. It’s not about not wanting to help people, I think most people agree it would be great to give everything to everyone who wants it but that is just not possible.
I guess I’ve forgotten how to read, because I can’t find that in the OP. I agree that its too late for this guy. We need to figure out how to stop making more like him. In general, we have failed a generation of workers. A high-school education used to mean something, and a graduate could compete in the workforce. No more. If you don’t have some kind of certificate beyond HS, you can’t even flip burgers (because the certificate shows that you can read). I don’t know the solution. I don’t think No Child Left Behind helped all that much. We need Head Start, we need to keep the kids engaged in learning until they are competent in the 3 Rs and we need enough entry-level jobs. Whats your solution?
Well, there’s your perceptual problem. If economics were actually a science, you wouldn’t be able to get 12 different answers to the same question if you ask 10 economists.
So the fact that physicists disagree about string theory means physics isn’t a science?
Of course economics is a science. Where aaaa may be wrong is in oversimplification; it is of course absolutely true that raising the price of a good (in this case labour) decreases demand. But that’s a general truism, not a prescription for social policy. To use the physics equivalent, I know that gravity causes objects to be pulled towards the Earth, but that does not mean I know how to design an airplane, or that simply removing mass from an airplane will make it fly better. If I reduce the mass by taking the wings off that’s not going to work out very well.
See, it’s equally true that while raising the price of labour reduces demand, labour prices aren’t necessarily all that elastic. It’s also true that for a given employer raising prices might not reduce demand at all, to a point, because they may still maximize their marginal return with the same number of employees. It’s also true that even if raising the minimum wage increases unemployment a little bit, the total cost to society is less than if we had no minimum wage at all. You can’t just pull out something you heard in the first three weeks of Econ 101 and declare that you have the answer just as you can’t pull out something you learned in high school biology and declare that you have the answer to all health problems.
But just because someone does one of the other doesn’t make economics or biology NOT a science.
At the moment, there is not. If conditions were dire enough, they would take those wages.
Often, it is about wanting to feel superior to “that guy” and being indifferent to his welfare. Many people who cite the ‘iron laws of economics’ are just looking for an argument to authority to hang their prejudices on.
Really? Is that how every wage increase is responded to? Why do wages ever rise, then? Why wouldn’t employers just groan and think of it as another cost of doing business that has risen, along with those very, very high executive salaries? Don’t hear much complaining about that from conservatives …
Only in the sense that “intelligent design” is scientific. It’s more Lysenkoism. Economics follow conservative ideology far too closely to be considered a science.
Case in point. Nobody has a CHOICE about following the law of gravity. It works whether you follow it or not. Economics is about people making deals. There are no constraints on how those deals are made.
“Giving everthing to everyone who wants it” is being advocated by whom? What social system that ever existed tried to do that?
Many of the “laws” of economics - like people always acting in their own best interest - have turned out to be wrong.
Now, to expand on what RickJay said.
If for the most part people making the minimum wage produce slightly above the minimum wage’s worth of value per hour (neglecting overhead for the moment) then it is true, raising the minimum wage could lead to higher unemployment. However, it might also lead to greater degrees of automation, which might lead to unemployment but would also lead to increased productivity.
Now, say that high unemployment has depressed wages and that productivity per worker is significantly higher than the minimum wage. This is almost certainly the case in the US today, since productivity increased much faster than wages in the last decade or so. Also, the minimum wage hadn’t been raised in a long time, and so lost value due to inflation - while output did not. In this case an employer could handle an increase in the minimum wage while still seeing worker productivity be higher than wages. Of course no employer would do that on his own since it would put him at a competitive disadvantage, but state mandated minimum wages treat everyone equally.
You might say this is a terrible thing, since it will depress profits and thus investment. Maybe not. Since our problem is lack of demand, not lack of investment money, an increase in the minimum wage will increase demand, and thanks to economy of scale probably improve the profitability of many industries. This could lead to more employment in the long run.
I don’t have an opinion on whether economics is a science. I just know my daughter had to study a lot of math along with economics at Chicago.