Review of 100+ academic studies shows negative impact of minimum wage hikes

[Cogman]

They have a position and as academics they're using arguments to defend their position. That is not bias. What bias are you accusing them of having exactly?

It's like you're saying "Don't listen to Einstein. He's biased towards believing in the theory of relativity."

While I agree with what you have to say about the minimum wage, this sort of rubs me the wrong way.

Academics are full of bias. Yes, they do usually have some sort of argument to defend their position, but their opposition generally has some pretty good arguments as well.

When a new theory comes up that goes against what is popular, it is often quickly dismissed and its proponent ignored. This is something that slows scientific development.

Though... generally, that is the right thing to do (as most new ideas can be pretty far out there).

Scientist are people to, everyone has bias.

 

[Infohawk]

Academics are full of bias. Yes, they do usually have some sort of argument to defend their position, but their opposition generally has some pretty good arguments as well.

Again, attacking people's motives is fallacious. Why don't you address their actual arguments?
I'm wondering if anyone but me and yllus have read this paper. The paper is a study of other studies. Their point is that most economists agree that the minimum wage negatively impacts unemployment.

PS I'm guessing you think the scientists who say global warming is a reality are also biased? Am I right?

 

[Cogman]

Again, attacking people's motives is fallacious. Why don't you address their actual arguments?
I'm wondering if anyone but me and yllus have read this paper. The paper is a study of other studies. There point is that most economists agree that the minimum wage negatively impacts unemployment.

PS I'm guessing you think the scientists who say global warming is a reality are also biased? Am I right?

Not at all. What I'm saying is that the direction that science takes, the effort they put in researching one area vs another is very faddish and that sometimes, they set up studies to prove their points.

For example, Look at all the research and funding that has been invested into vaccination studies. From the onset, wakefield's study was pretty questionable, and yet we continued to invest more and more money into studies that came back again and again saying the same thing "Inconclusive, but further study may reveal some connection."

Other examples through history include the studies that disproved spontaneous generation (the meat fly experiment).

Again, I agree with your position, but saying there is no bias in science is silly (your argument, and my take on it).

 

[senseamp]

A lot of these minimum wage workers are only making ends meet due to government programs. Lowering minimum wage would simply shift more of the burden to taxpayers. It's an indirect government subsidy for the employer like Walmart. We already know that government money can lower unemployment. The government could just as easily use that money to hire people directly and reduce unemployment that way. So even if the study is correct, which it very well could be, it doesn't actually mean that we should lower or eliminate minimum wage to reduce unemployment, given the externalities and opportunity costs.

 

[Infohawk]

but saying there is no bias in science is silly (your argument, and my take on it).

That's not my argument. My POSITION is that it's useless and fallacious to attack people's motives or biases. Attack their ARGUMENTS. If Hitler argues 2+2=4, saying he's a jerk or has a nazi agenda doesn't disprove anything. Here, most of these posters should be attacking their methodology and reasoning instead of attacking their alleged bias. And your saying some economists disagree with these guys doesn't show anything either. Either their arguments and study are good or they aren't.

Again, all that matters is the quality of the arguments, data, analysis in this social science context.

PS And if scientists are wrongfully ignored for coming up with a new idea, that's too bad. But doesn't really affect whether they're right or wrong.

 

[Cogman]

That's not my argument. My POSITION is that it's useless and fallacious to attack people's motives or biases. Attack their ARGUMENTS. If Hitler argues 2+2=4, saying he's a jerk or has a nazi agenda doesn't disprove anything. Here, most of these posters should be attacking their methodology and reasoning instead of attacking their alleged bias. And your saying some economists disagree with these guys doesn't show anything either. Either their arguments and study are good or they aren't.

Again, all that matters is the quality of the arguments, data, analysis in this social science context.

PS And if scientists are wrongfully ignored for coming up with a new idea, that's too bad. But doesn't really affect whether they're right or wrong.

Well, it is pretty hard to see who has been wrongfully ignored as their studies are generally never really seen.

Either way, I agree then with your standpoint then. A study is sound based off of the methods and arguments it uses, not who sponsors it.