Raise the Hammer

Ryan wrote:

>> I posted links to peer reviewed papers written by well-respected economists and published by reputable organizations. Unless you can find issue with the evidence, arguments or conclusions, your comment amounts to a mere ad hominem fallacy.

Oh, okay. I guess you're right, then. Your references don't pertain to our economic environment, nor do they prove anything above and beyond "perspective statistics". Reference to ideas or facts, not opinion.

>> No. That is the route of reasoning from a priori assumptions, and it is not a reliable way of testing economic theories.

No, Perhaps not. But it is definitely detracting for those who are reasoning from "a priori assumptions". We all lose. Good turnout.

>> The evidence does not support this conclusion. Again, raising the minimum wage tends to:

What evidence? Economics is science. Unless you weight in every single variable, you cannot call it "evidence". We call that religion. Again, I can find articles that would reference the other side of that of that, respectfully.

>> The difference between your a priori reasoning and the empirical studies I cited is that the latter produce actual *evidence* that must be taken into account by the working hypothesis.

Your interpretation of "evidence" seems to be legacy. Evidence needs empirical proof, as you said. These articles reference experience after specific changes were made, but completely negates on event managing any other potential changes that could have occurred. Your "evidence" is closer to chaos theory.

As A Smith said, "Furthermore, the studies that you mention, tend to look at very short time frames and all of them cherry pick the best years as evidence that minimum wage laws don't drastically reduce employment."

"Cherry pick the best years" -- as I said, religion -- not evidence. This is no where near empirical. Selling it as such is an attack on everyone's intelligence.