The Glade 4.0

Wow, you guys are awesome ...

Seriously, common knowledge now requires citation and justification. I'm amazed.

Whatever.

viewtopic.php?p=75959#p75959

viewtopic.php?p=76105#p76105

_________________

And you expect people to remember your arguments with Monty for a year or more ago? Why didn't you just link those posts in the first place without ***** about it so much?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Khross - is your view that we are in an over-employment correction akin to "hangover theory"?

More people working gets more stuff done... it's good for the economy. It's really as simple as that. Economies are about getting stuff done.

Come on, man. You're bright enough to know that "more jobs will hurt the economy" is NOT common knowledge. For an academic, you sure seem to take offense at being questioned. I really don't think it's warranted.

I need to get some stuff out, so I won't have a chance to read through this until this afternoon.

You must not know many academics if you think that's unusual!

I have no problems being questioned. I have problems with people thinking it's always someone else's responsibility to disprove their arguments: You and Taskiss are the most egregious offenders.

Taskiss keeps making an appeal to sympathy, but that's because no matter how many facts have been thrown out about economics over the years, he keeps thinking current models work.

You, on the other hand, Arathain ...

Just told me I had to justify the first two lessons in Intro Economics. So ...

Why on earth would I entertain this thread when neither of you have any interest in participating in good faith?

_________________

You make this claim, and yet - when called on it, you didn't show where I had done this, and meanwhile, you had to be nagged into backing up your positive assertions.



That's his entire argument, if I understand it. Don't get pissy because you don't like his framing of the problem. Your "solution" doesn't fit his problem. Of course he'll have issues.



So you say. But it's your application of these "lessons" I'm questioning, not the lesson. I'm hoping you addressed it in your links. We'll see.



Fixed it for you.

Arathain:

Except for the fact I've shown my work. This entire little problem with people not giving a **** every time you say, "Source Please;" has to do with you never reading the sources or accept what they contain.

I've shown my work on this subject for 10 years; and it's somehow my responsibility to make up for the fact you and Taskiss still refuse to read the information provided? Hell, I even started another attempt to explain it, and you said I had to start sourcing the Law of Supply and Demand and the Law of Production of Efficiency before my argument went anywhere?

Sorry, I don't have time for your childishness.

More to the point, I didn't make a positive assertion in this thread. I made a negative statement:

More jobs will not solve our problems.

The positive assertions are:

a) The problem is all about jobs -- Taskiss

b) Common knowledge requires justification -- Arathain

If you want to discuss a topic, you don't blame your own ignorance on someone else; and that's exactly what you're doing.

So, why don't you and Taskiss defend your positions? You two rarely do; in fact, I can't remember the last time either of you sourced your own arguments. I have, however, sourced this particular argument at least once per incarnation of this forum. If you haven't read it and understood the argument by now, there's really no point in me explaining it to you. Your posting history indicates you won't care what facts are out there anyway.

_________________

Slow down, there, Turbo. You just posted your backup yesterday, and I said I'm busy. I promise you're my highest priority as soon as I get this report out.



Yes. It is your responsibility. It's certainly not my job to follow you around on every iteration of this board, and take notes on the off chance you might make a related point in the future.



No, if you read my point, I said you'd have to deal with the related issues I raised if they affected your justification (which you never got to).



Yawn. I'm a child now? Because I'm questioning you? My God, man, you have a head on your shoulders. I mean, you actually implied that it would take 10-15 years of study to get on the same page as you, and until then I'd just have to take your word as fact. Balls, man. Huge balls. I actually laughed out loud when I read that.



Swing and a miss.



Back it up.



You should be able to quote where I said "common knowledge requires justification". Go. I think you'll find there were qualifiers on that.



There's that head again. You question me???? How can you question me??? You must just be ignorant!



I haven't taken a position on this. I'm still trying to understand where you're coming from so I can weigh in.



Now you're crying about posting history? Jesus, man. You get way too worked up about stuff sometimes.

Because now you are the one asserting something.

Stating a fact is an interesting concept. It confuses people. The reason several gladers make fiat declaration and then demand either that they be disproven or that everyone else accept their statement is because they think they see others doing it. When I make a fiat declaration about something, let's say it's gravity, and then I hold to it despite what the unwashed masses see as compelling and rational arguments, the unwashed masses get the impression that such a tactic works for any statement. They do not understand that I am not actually making a fiat declaration. They don't understand that I don't have to prove an attraction between any two objects based on their masses, because there has already been a substantial amount of experimentation to prove exactly that. They simply do not know enough to tell the difference.

The burden is one the one making the positive assertion. When some idiot claims that we're stuck to the Earth because of invisible mole people holding onto our ankles, I have fallen into that idiot's cunning trap when I claim it's actually the result of gravity. Now, the idiot turns around and demands that I prove my claim. According to the Rules of Arguing on the Internet, he's correct to do so, and nevermind that he never proved his own claim. He has shifted the burden of proof off of his own ridiculous idea, and onto me, and if I don't know enough physics to satisfactorily prove that gravity exists, he wins the argument. This is what is meant by the old adage, "Don't argue with retards, they'll only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

The Rules of Arguing on the Internet were written long before we had the internet. They were agreed upon over the course of several centuries of scholars debating over the merits of one particular idea versus another, and the idea was to ensure that everyone was arguing in good faith. The purpose of these Rules was to be able to distinguish between the ideas of the unwashed masses from the ideas of scholars who had done their research and homework. The unwashed masses do not understand that, they never have, and they never will. They think that the Rules themselves are what determines right and wrong. Moreover, it's far easier to learn the Rules of Arguing on the Internet in order to exploit them than it is to actually gather the required knowledge base and come up with a well-researched argument.

What the internet did was throw open the discussion to the unwashed masses. Everyone can participate. Everyone can share their ideas. Everyone can even find supporting evidence to prove their argument right. Because the Flat Earth Society has a webpage, it's considered a valid source to prove the Earth is flat. Crackpot ideas are propagating again because uneducated fools are reading and repeating them, and they aren't sufficiently armed with the knowledge or the sense to recognize bullshit for what it is. These individuals then attempt to enter into the discussion and argue with people who actually know something. They think that the only thing required is a basic grasp of the Rules of Arguing over the Internet. Furthermore, because most of us have at least a passing familiarity with statistics, your uneducated peons are confident that whoever they're arguing with is as uneducated as they are.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Arathain:

Is the Law of Supply and Demand valid?

_________________

Of course "it's all about jobs" is an emotional appeal. So is love, liberty and freedom. Many things that can't be strictly measured by numbers are the most important things to people. As far as emotional appeals go, jobs is a damn good one and more important to folks than the deficit.

When you look out of your tower, do you even see the people?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148589/Conce ... ficit.aspx

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

First post has a lot of background, which I have read already, and I get. The only real take away relating to the discussion at hand that I consider worth discussing here is this snippet:



Now, this is pretty obvious from a macroeconomic standpoint, but it doesn't fully address the point. The implications of this being that continued stimulus/job creation policies, etc. serve to drive down the value of labor. But unemployment does this as well (same supply and demand curve). Also, the curve is (generally) balanced - in other words, given supply, demand and value will stabilize. So while it stabilizes at a lower value, why is this "worse"? Perhaps you are not making this argument, but you seem to be implying that job growth policies are bad, but not unemployment. Why would this be different? Available labor is available labor. It is supply. Why do policies aiming to increase hiring do more damage to labor value than just having a large unemployed labor pool? Is it a temporary bubble that you are concerned about? Why?

Maybe this is all addressed in the next post. Moving on...



Not much meat here, just further discussion.

Nothing in these posts is new, and it doesn't really address the question, unless I'm missing something. It seems to set up a nice framework for an answer, but I think more is needed.

The questions remain: Why would more jobs make things worse? What things? What is worse? From whose perspective? Why would overhiring necessarily drive down labor value faster than a huge available labor pool, and why is that worse? Have you considered unrest? Have you considered crime? There's a huge number of unaddressed variables out there in terms of consequences that could affect an assessment of "worse". Are these ignored, or are these non-issues for some reason? Why?

Taskiss is clearly in the more jobs, lower value be damned camp. You are in the other. He's explained why he is where he is, I'm still not seeing your justification for why one is better than the other.

As for me, I'd have to look at a lot more data to form a solid opinion. But gut reaction, I'm not real excited about a large number of chronically unemployed, uneducated men. I don't see how that can be "better" for anyone.

Corolinth:

A more appropriate analogy would be 2 individuals arguing, and a third piping in and, though he understands gravity, questions why you are applying it in that way.

Now, you can A) get all defensive and approach it as an argument, insult his intelligence for not understanding what you mean and why you are doing it, and suggest that he's not on your level and therefore not worth your time, or B) you could just answer his question and explain where you came up with your statement.

Based on your choice of words, I'm guessing your an "Option A" kind of guy.

I see no reason to suggest otherwise. What's your point?

bump

...

Arathain:

If the Law of Supply and Demand is valid, then you have 0 arguments with my statements in this thread. It's pretty much that simple. Once you reach the point where successive workforce generations can and do expect less money for the same job as a previous generation, you're well past market equilibrium for a given commodity. And since people are commodities and have been since we invented the Time Clock and Fiat Currencies, I'm really not sure why you'd even argue that more jobs will help our economic situation.

_________________

People have always been commodities, since time is the only money that matters. We're just getting better at making the connection.

Seems to me (and I know I'm simplifying this), with people being commodities, the supply is there, and unemployment is a result of supply being greater than the demand.

FAIL

1) As stated, I'm not "arguing" with your position, I'm asking you to justify it. You have not done so. Specifically, having gone through your long-winded and semi-related post you linked, I provided requests for you to justify WHY more jobs = worse, and what you consider worse and why. I provided my concerns with your proposed approach and you did not address these either.
2) I asked for your opinion on why overemployment would be worse for wage rates than excessive unemployment, you did not address this.
3) More to the point, I asked nine specific questions, not one of them have you responded to.
4) You say you're "not sure why [I'd] even argue that more jobs will help our economic situation" when I have repeatedly corrected your strawman, and stated multiple times that I AM NOT MAKING THAT ARGUMENT.
5) What you have done in this thread is engaged in a lot of ***** about people not reading your posts, etc. As shown above, you have clearly not read mine. I sincerely hope you remember this the next time you start complaining about others.
6) Now don't get me wrong, if you don't want to continue the conversation, that's fine. I have no issues with this, I just have to fall back on my original statement:



It's an interesting discussion, and I'd love to see it through, but it appears you're too defensive about being questioned to really explain where you're coming from.