That’s because the comparison has to be made within the same environment. There are way too many uncontrolled variables comparing today to 100 years ago/
Cool. Compare apples to apples. Minimum wage was instituted in 1938. Show me the comparison between 1937 and 1939 in terms of “people dying” and you would have an argument. But even if you take 10 years before and 10 years after the comparison would be invalid, because of utterly different economic situation (war economy etc.)
The experiment has already been made. It’s the Great Social Experiment we’re all engaged in. It has demonstrated that a balance between capitalistic greed and government regulation (or “battle” rather than “balance”, if you will) plus a side order of limited social welfare via “wealth redistribution” <grin>, played out over the decades, is what has separated average living conditions and quality of life in the USA (and to a perhaps similar extent in other Western societies) from the Somalias of the world.
Give Terr credit here folks. He has just invented quantum economics. You see, there are no jobs, and no job hunters, but only job probability density functions and job hunter probability density functions. Just as a photon can be both a particle and a wave, a person can be both employed and unemployed if they look for jobs fast enough. 1,000 people and 100 jobs? No problemo! When person 1 takes a potty break person 2 gets the job real fast! Bingo.
Terr should apply for a joint Nobel Prize in Physics and Economics.
But enough of levity. We see what is really going on here, which is the libertarian’s conviction that he is damn smart. Who cares if 200 people are in line for a job. Terr will just get in ahead of all of them. Anyone not getting a job say in 1931 is not unemployed because there are fewer jobs than people, but unemployed because he is lazy. If you let him go long enough, he’ll find a job. Or die. Same difference, both reduce unemployment, right?
If Terr would call his local food bank, or even listen to the radio, he’d figure out there is massive need. And it is going to get worse since his buddies cut food stamps. I’m eagerly awaiting the massive increase in charitable giving from conservatives to make up for this. No, the Tea Party does not count as a food bank.
So, you’re saying, draw a comparison to what happened when the law was passed in the very next year, before its effects had time to percolate, and the year before it was passed, or else you’ll consider the results invalid?
That may be the most perfect well-poisoning ever.
Sure. Because Somalia started from the same base as the “Western societies” and then diverged due to the lack of “wealth distribution”.
I’ll take two years. Just so that the “effects percolating” does not include WWII effects on US economy.
So what’s the latest year’s data that you’ll accept?
At this point, however, I think the discussion is academic. You appear to be going on faith that minimum wage had no effect on reducing deaths from poverty, despite the fact that overwhelmingly societies that have instituted minimum wages and other social welfare programs have seen reductions in deaths from poverty. You seem unaware of the massive number of deaths from poverty that occurred in nineteenth century US, deaths that would have been prevented by modern social welfare programs. I’m unconvinced that your argument has any factual basis, and even its theoretical basis is flawed, viz. my earlier post on game theory. So I’m not sure how much effort I’m willing to put into hunting down the cites that you so fastidiously demand.
Can you show causation from minimum wage controlled for other causes? If you cannot, you’re taking it on faith.
Excluded middle. Are you playing fallacy bingo or something?
Could you show me a cite for causation? Because your assertion that minimum wages reduce poverty is not really backed up in empirical studies.
Says the poster that has brought absolutely nothing but factless faith to the table.
Just pointing out that your side relies on factless faith just as much.
No, you just hand wave away the facts offered as not satisfying your personal criteria for consideration.
I lack access to scholarly articles right now, but the abstracts show that studies are contradictory on this measure. Even the ones that suggest it’s not effective at reducing poverty, however, seem to suggest that in reality it’s not the most effective means of reducing poverty instead of suggesting that it’s entirely ineffective.
And stats that show there aren’t half enough jobs out there for the unemployed, no matter what the jobs happen to be or how well the unemployed are trained. Leave it to charity? I volunteer at a food pantry every Saturday and Sunday, and if it weren’t for government help our shelves would be be empty on most weekends. We don’t get enough in private donations to do the job that needs to be done.
Food pantries are inefficient. Soup kitchen.
Are there any other parts of the Great Depression you happen to have wet dreams over? Soup kitchens are a very bad idea-making families stand in long humiliating lines out in public for ghod knows how long to get food they may not even be able to eat in the first place. While we’re at it, why don’t we shut down public transportation and go back to riding the rails in boxcars. :rolleyes:
Yes, cuz it is all about convenience.
Could I get a “Blather-To-English” interpreter in here, please?
I think it was “How dare you suggest poor people actually have something and not suffer for it. They should not be allowed to own anything that makes them happy, and be inconvenienced at every possible juncture. Who cares if they’re working full time in a job where they are not paid, which I think is great, they should still be humiliated for daring to exist.”
Am I close?