1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Moderator1, Nov 12, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. TheSportsPredictor

    TheSportsPredictor Well-Known Member

  2. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    I didn't say "not smart enough." The smartest people are the ones most likely to fall into the trap you've fallen into. Wanting to oversimplify assumptions to make life follow a simple set of rules.

    The law exists. It is applicable to the situation if all the assumptions of the law are true.

    It is never the case that all the assumptions are true, and in this case the different is not trivial.
     
  3. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    Rick, you really are off-base here. You're confusing a scientific law -- and the reason it's called the "Law of Demand" is not because the economists are full of themselves -- with empirical views of it in action. You're acting just like those doofuses who say, "Wow, yesterday was a record low for June 26, global warming must be a hoax!"
     
  4. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I have no idea where you got the fortune cookie that came from. ... But it isn't an explanation of how the laws and supply and demand don't apply to the market for labor (in Seattle or anyplace else). The only possible answer would be something like, "Because when you increase labor costs on businesses, the hit to profits / margins doesn't put some out of business - -whether they try raising prices first or not -- or cause others to have to scale back on workers."

    At which point I would ask what your evidence of that is, because it flies contrary to empirical reality.
     
  5. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    How to Impress Your Lefty College Professor (Without Really Trying) for Dummies ....
     
  6. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I just saw that you edited your post after I responded. I am not oversimplifying anything. These two things are empirical regularities (at least the rare instances I can think of where typical supply and demand behavior MIGHT not hold has nothing to do with this conversation): As the price of low-skilled labor increases, the demand for that labor falls. And as the wage for that labor increases, the quantity supplied increases.

    I'm not falling into some kind of trap when I state that. EMPIRICALLY those things are just true, for very well understood reasons.
     
  7. amraeder

    amraeder Well-Known Member

    You know just enough about proctology...
     
    RickStain and doctorquant like this.
  8. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    That's where my profit motive leads me. Can't be helped
     
  9. TheSportsPredictor

    TheSportsPredictor Well-Known Member

  10. HanSenSE

    HanSenSE Well-Known Member

    BowlingGreenJobs.com?
     
    Baron Scicluna likes this.
  11. Matt1735

    Matt1735 Well-Known Member

    Donny will be pleased with the CBO scoring. Only 22 million lose coverage in the Senate version, over 23 million in the House version.

    This bill shows much more heart. It's a 4.5 percent improvement....
     
  12. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    Fifteen million projected to lose insurance next year! Great platform for an election year, that.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page