Support NeoGAF

[humansarehorses]

While the bolded is true that doesn't mean that extra-market production is not significant.

No, but it's a very good reason to think that the work done is low-skilled and that's a good reason to think that volunteer work does not compose a large part of the US economy (like the FIRE industry does -- which is why I posted that link, to show different industries' contributions to GDP).

These are simple connections to make.

You, on the other hand, haven't given any reason to think that anything of what you said is true.

I mean I could in more detail, but I'm already wasting a lot of time on someone whose being rude and who I doubt is particularly interested in actually thinking about what I have to say.

Either way you would want to look at his data, which is essentially what this argument is about anyway.

He has data... on activities that are not accounted for?

Sounds like a good waste of time.

I cited secondary literature that does so at length. This is an argument about whether or not something exists. You aren't accepting my rational premise from earlier, and you just made fun of me when I provided empirical evidence.

After many posts, you finally gave some guy's name. That's the extent of your support. Not even a mention of how his work relates to what we're talking about.

If that's not a joke, what is?

Meanwhile you also aren't supporting your claim.

Already have. I thought about it. I wrote out my reasoning. You read my reasoning. You didn't argue against my reasoning.

At the end of the day there is probably an axiomatic difference we won't be overcoming, but you're also not even trying to understand what I'm saying. Moreover, you absolutely have demonstrated a lack of understand on at least the research that has been done on the topic. This is a thing, whether or not you like it.

You're right, there's are differences we won't be overcoming. You have too hard of a time understanding what you read, and you're incapable of explaining your position or the position of those you claim support your conclusions.

Please, this whole conversation has been about various kinds of extra market activity, that was an example. But no, you are right, I'm just illiterate.

The first step is admitting you have a problem.

I mean you really didn't. But no, once again, you are right. I am merely illiterate, how sad I was finally discovered.

I gave my reasoning from the start. Reasoning is a form of justification.

It still has implications for our understanding of political-economy. I mean this is something both economists and historians have deal with for that reason.

So let's just make sure this clear to you since you can't follow a conversation well:

You stated that the existence of Z goods implies that either people aren't rational or that markets aren't the most efficient (with the answer being a little bit of both).

I, actually knowing a thing or two about economics, graciously explained to you what those words really mean in the field.

You are now conceding that the existence of Z goods has no implications for rationality. Nice! Progress!

The preference involved in z good production is a preference for both production and consumption outside of the market. Again just look at what a Z good is, something you've show no interest in doing despite arguing about it.

Big fucking deal? It has no implications for rationality or market efficiency.

Yeah, you've already established I'm an idiot and illiterate. Clearly there wasn't any full thought in that sentence.

There actually wasn't. You brought up this element in some preference, dropped that element altogether and never tied anything together with your prior statements regarding Z goods, rationality and efficiency.

Oh please, of course you're talking about the quality of research, that's what you were getting at when you brought up the rankings in the first place. It was part of an argument to discredit the New School.

Nope, never talked about quality. Feel free to quote any prior post where I did. All I was talking about was how respected the New School is.

You see, I keep my arguments on point.

I think it's ridiculous that you keep on attacking me for supposedly not understanding what you're saying, when you're also failing to provide me the same courtesy.

You're free to attack my comprehension of anything you said.

These two sentences are tantamount to just stating "I'm right and your just too dumb to understand". You might be right, but it's a pretty meaningless declaration.

Reasoning is a form of justification. I provided my reasoning.

Now you're just playing coy. Suggesting the research is bad is exactly the point of what you were saying. Don't try to back away from that. If I'm in an argument and someone draws on Niall Ferguson and I argue that Niall Ferguson is not a respected historian then point is clearly to argue that his research is not sound.

Pretending that isn't what you were getting at is incredibly disingenuous.

Yeah, no. I'm just careful with my words because I know how to keep my arguments on point. I never made any claims about the New School's research quality.

 

[NervousXtian]

It matters to the labor market as a whole. I disagree with your premises where information has no consequence.


They have always been free to do this, some of them are more preoccupied on not helping their constituents.

They have a flawed view that without regulation that companies will pay what the market bears. It's never worked out that way on the bottom.

Businesses typically don't provide health care to employees that actually make minimum wage, so your point there is kind of off-base. Most of those workers are classified as part time even if they work full time so that their employer doesn't have to provide insurance. The employer then bullies them into cutting hours, or schedules them less if they are close to receiving benefits, requiring those workers to pick up a second job to make ends meet. The employees that do have health insurance in retail and service jobs are usually supervisors and managers who make more than minimum anyway.

Raising the min wage doesn't solve the health care issue at all.

 

[Lord of Ostia]

Businesses are required to provide health care to full time employees (W/ some exceptions.) The "full time in name only" thing happens a lot less than you'd think simply because it's not worth the hassle w/ many large companies.

And yes, the rise of "internships", "contract workers" and "part timers in name only" is in large part a response to this as a way to duck these requirements, which is why getting a universal health care system in place that's not tied to employment is so incredibly important here in the states, because it causes all sorts of f'd up incentive issues for both employers and workers.

I mean, it happens every day at my workplace. Pretty much every retail job is like this, especially from large corporations like Wal-Mart, Kroger, etc. I totally agree with you about universal healthcare solving this problem, but you are giving many of these companies too much credit. Most of my coworkers work what functionally amounts to full time and are not given benefits, with constant bullying from management to cut hours.

Edit: As for the post above, I never claimed that raising minimum wage would solve the healthcare issue, I'm simply refuting the idea that most minimum wage workers make more than the minimum through benefits. Most minimum wage workers do not receive benefits.

 

[kirblar]

It matters to the labor market as a whole. I disagree with your premises where information has no consequence.

What on earth are you talking about w/ "information has no consequence"?

Metropolitan areas are raising their minimum wages on their own w/ no need to micromanage from a federal level. There is no need to override them here. That difference in relative wage levels between urban and rural areas will always exist.

 

[Cocaloch]

No, but it's a very good reason to think that the work done is low-skilled and that's a good reason to think that volunteer work does not compose a large part of the US economy (like the FIRE industry does -- which is why I posted that link, to show different industries' contributions to GDP).

I've accepted the first part, and I'll accept what I take to be your argument for the second as long as we are just talking about volunteer work in a particularly narrow sense.

These are simple connections to make.
.

This isn't an argument, and it's one that could easily be complicated.

Ag work and putting out spun textiles were the biggest sectors of 17th century England's economy, both were extremely low skill. Meanwhile the highest skill sectors, watch making and silk production, had quite low shares of the economy.

There is probably some sort of connection between relative skill in a sector and it's size relative to the whole economy. But there are obviously other factors as well.

Thus it does not follow that high skill means a larger share of the pie.

You, on the other hand, haven't given any reason to think that anything of what you said is true.

Well I did. I've called your attention to Jan de Vries, and his voluminous work on the subject. Again I can't provide you with a rational explanation, you're rejecting my arguments out of hand, and you don't want to accept the empirical one.

He has data... on activities that are not accounted for?

Sounds like a good waste of time.

Do you honestly think the market is the only thing that produces value?

You'll find that his work is not a waste of time and The Industrious Revolution is one of, if not the, most important books of economy history in the last half century.

After many posts, you finally gave some guy's name. That's the extent of your support. Not even a mention of how his work relates to what we're talking about.

You're right, I didn't provide anything before. That was mostly because I took it to be commonly accepted that a large percent of economic activity is done outside of the market. I've said as much before.

When I realized you wouldn't accept that I gave you the name of the most important thinker on the topic.

N
Already have. I thought about it. I wrote out my reasoning. You read my reasoning. You didn't argue against my reasoning.

Your reasoning seems to be volunteer work is low skill therefor work without compensation is negligible.

You're right, there's are differences we won't be overcoming. You have too hard of a time understanding what you read, and you're incapable of explaining your position or the position of those you claim support your conclusions.

You're right, I'm not doing an amazing job of explaining my position, mostly because I take it to be self-evident and widley remarked upon elsewhere. Such positions are the hardest to defend. Especially when you're arguing against someone that is axiomatically opposed to them.

Of course that last point reveals an important element of this discussion that you keep ignoring. You are also not really explaining your point. You don't see how you're doing the same thing I'm doing because it's your axiomatic stance, and you aren't being self-critical here at all.

The first step is admitting you have a problem.
t

And he was responding to you saying

How many people do you know work without any compensation?

Which is to say he provided an example, of which there are many. You decided that since you didn't find that one example sufficiently convincing that your point was correct. You're completely ignoring context in order to make your point here. Without trying to be too dismissive of the field, that's a classic stereotype about economists.

I gave my reasoning from the start. Reasoning is a form of justification.

You did not provide any sort of justification for your most centeral point,

the claim that free markets are socially optimal.

Everything you're doing here rests on the idea that this claim is true unless there is evidence that it isn't. My argument was that such a statement must be qualified, even the most vulgar free market ideologue acknowledges the tragedy of the commons.

So let's just make sure this clear to you since you can't follow a conversation well:

You almost made it through a whole post without being a dick. I was actually going to thank your for moderating your tone some.

I, actually knowing a thing or two about economics, graciously explained to you what those words really mean in the field.

lol.

You are now conceding that the existence of Z goods has no implications for rationality. Nice! Progress!.

I actually think it does have strong implications for rationality, but that's another topic of discussion and one I suppose I shouldn't have even gone into.

Big fucking deal? It has no implications for rationality or market efficiency.

How does it not have implications for market efficinency. Let's grant that everyone behaves rationally all the time. If a Z good, which is created through extra market production, then clearly the market is not in an unqualified way the most efficient means of producing something? The fact that people are choosing to produce Z goods means that at least sometimes the free market is not the most efficient device for production.

There actually wasn't.

I mean there was, I diagrammed it out above in the second post. I could have been clearer about it I suppose.

Nope, never talked about quality. Feel free to quote any prior post where I did. All I was talking about was how respected the New School is.

I'll break it down for you this last time, but I don't appreciate people dancing around what they are actually arguing for.

Poster qualified the research saying that an economist involved was from The New School. I asserted that The New School was respectable. You asserted that it was not. Unless you were just making a totally tangential point, unlikely given your rhetorical aims here, the reason you made the assertion was in support of pointing out that the economist involved was from the New School since that colors the quality of the work. You are connecting being from the New School and the quality of the work produced?

You see, I keep my arguments on point.

Attacking literacy in a thread about economics isn't my definition of on point.

You're free to attack my comprehension of anything you said.

I mean that's what I've been doing by providing counter points.

Yeah, no. I'm just careful with my words because I know how to keep my arguments on point.

This reads like an edgy teenager. Arguments are complicated beasts. Context and the meaning behind your ideas are just as important and relevant to an argument as the words you're saying.

I never made any claims about the New School's research quality.

You never made any direct statements about it. You clearly made an argument where the point was to downplay it though, as I pointed out above.

You've also managed to ignore a lot of my other points in that last post.

 

[thehypocrite]

They have a flawed view that without regulation that companies will pay what the market bears. It's never worked out that way on the bottom

I agree with this.

 

[thehypocrite]

What on earth are you talking about w/ "information has no consequence"?

Metropolitan areas are raising their minimum wages on their own w/ no need to micromanage from a federal level. There is no need to override them here. That difference in relative wage levels between urban and rural areas will always exist.

How would an increase will override what they already do even better out of their own volition?

 

[Version 3.0]

rooted in ideology, not evidence

This should be the GOP's official motto.

Or at least, the suitable for work version.

 

[IISANDERII]

It's a political position no matter what bullshit you want to dress it up as. And it is bullshit that you're trying to sell right now because there are a number of different policies that can increase the living standards for low income households.

I call out your false little labelling and you throw a hissy fit. The only thing you've established is that you're too emotional to present a rational argument.

 

[humansarehorses]

I call out your false little labelling and you throw a hissy fit. The only thing you've established is that you're too emotional to present a rational argument.

You should get your head checked.

When I say political positions, I'm obviously referring to matters of national politics. That is, what the government should or should not do. If you are taking a position on what the government should do, you are taking a political position. The position that the (federal) government should increase the minimum wage is a political position.

You can dress it up your position in whatever hogwash you want to dress it up in: it's still a political position.

I've accepted the first part, and I'll accept what I take to be your argument for the second as long as we are just talking about volunteer work in a particularly narrow sense.

FYI, this is my last response to you.

At this point, with your blatant inability to follow my arguments, do you really think I care what you accept?

This isn't an argument, and it's one that could easily be complicated.

Ag work and putting out spun textiles were the biggest sectors of 17th century England's economy, both were extremely low skill. Meanwhile the highest skill sectors, watch making and silk production, had quite low shares of the economy.

There is probably some sort of connection between relative skill in a sector and it's size relative to the whole economy. But there are obviously other factors as well.

Thus it does not follow that high skill means a larger share of the pie.

It has all of the tells of an argument. Premises that form the basis of an intermediate conclusion which further serves as a premise for the final conclusion.

Now sure, you can say that there are other factors (congrats on being vague yet again). But the labor skill is a large part of it. Which is reason enough for me to doubt that volunteer work is a large part of any modern economy. I should have made it clear that I was thinking of modern economies from the start.

Well I did. I've called your attention to Jan de Vries, and his voluminous work on the subject. Again I can't provide you with a rational explanation, you're rejecting my arguments out of hand, and you don't want to accept the empirical one.

Buddy, pointing to one guy and saying read his work isn't an argument.

Do you honestly think the market is the only thing that produces value?

You'll find that his work is not a waste of time and The Industrious Revolution is one of, if not the, most important books of economy history in the last half century.

Who's talking about value? Values are the maximum amount that people are willing to pay. Prices reflect that but they are not values.

Anyway, I was asking about how his data could relate to what we're talking about since volunteer work is not accounted for.

Yikes.

You're right, I didn't provide anything before. That was mostly because I took it to be commonly accepted that a large percent of economic activity is done outside of the market. I've said as much before.

When I realized you wouldn't accept that I gave you the name of the most important thinker on the topic.

So... given your opening claims in this post, just chalk this up to your poor reading comprehension?

Your reasoning seems to be volunteer work is low skill therefor work without compensation is negligible.

I never said negligible.

Please, for the love of god, improve your reading comprehension skills.

You're right, I'm not doing an amazing job of explaining my position, mostly because I take it to be self-evident and widley remarked upon elsewhere. Such positions are the hardest to defend. Especially when you're arguing against someone that is axiomatically opposed to them.

Of course that last point reveals an important element of this discussion that you keep ignoring. You are also not really explaining your point. You don't see how you're doing the same thing I'm doing because it's your axiomatic stance, and you aren't being self-critical here at all.

If it's self-evident then there should be plenty written about it especially concerning my specific conclusion.

And he was responding to you saying

Which is to say he provided an example, of which there are many. You decided that since you didn't find that one example sufficiently convincing that your point was correct. You're completely ignoring context in order to make your point here. Without trying to be too dismissive of the field, that's a classic stereotype about economists.

Okay, so there's an honest misunderstanding.

If you follow the chain of comments, the first was about the invisible hand and compensation. Claims about welfare are not equivalent to claims about economic production. The invisible hand, the first welfare theorem, is a welfare claim. It says nothing about economic production.

So when I brought up people working without compensation, I was thinking about it in terms of welfare, not economic production.

But then the user that quoted me started to talk about economies which, colloquially, refers to macroeconomies and economic production. So I responded to that claim specifically.

You did not provide any sort of justification for your most centeral point,


Everything you're doing here rests on the idea that this claim is true unless there is evidence that it isn't. My argument was that such a statement must be qualified, even the most vulgar free market ideologue acknowledges the tragedy of the commons.

You seem to be really confused on lots of things.

1. The conversation keeps moving between welfare claims and claims about economic production. These claims are not equivalent.

2. The presence of negative externalities in general do not mean that free markets do not produce the socially optimal quantity. In fact in a market with few competitors, the output they produce could be socially optimal if there are negative externalities.

You almost made it through a whole post without being a dick. I was actually going to thank your for moderating your tone some.



lol.

I know the actual definitions of rationality and Pareto efficiency. You don't.

I actually think it does have strong implications for rationality, but that's another topic of discussion and one I suppose I shouldn't have even gone into.

The existence of Z goods says nothing about whether consumers have complete and transitive preferences.

How does it not have implications for market efficinency. Let's grant that everyone behaves rationally all the time. If a Z good, which is created through extra market production, then clearly the market is not in an unqualified way the most efficient means of producing something? The fact that people are choosing to produce Z goods means that at least sometimes the free market is not the most efficient device for production.

You're misunderstanding what efficiency means in economics which I defined correctly elsewhere. It's not what you think it means.

I'll break it down for you this last time, but I don't appreciate people dancing around what they are actually arguing for.

Poster qualified the research saying that an economist involved was from The New School. I asserted that The New School was respectable. You asserted that it was not. Unless you were just making a totally tangential point, unlikely given your rhetorical aims here, the reason you made the assertion was in support of pointing out that the economist involved was from the New School since that colors the quality of the work. You are connecting being from the New School and the quality of the work produced?

I was just giving my two cents on a claim of yours. Nothing more, nothing less.

This reads like an edgy teenager. Arguments are complicated beasts. Context and the meaning behind your ideas are just as important and relevant to an argument as the words you're saying.

Sure, context matters which is why I brought up the econ department rankings specifically.

Still, you can't put words in a person's mouth and expect them to be fine with it. And you can't keep pushing a mistaken notion without expecting at least some derision.

You never made any direct statements about it. You clearly made an argument where the point was to downplay it though, as I pointed out above.

You've also managed to ignore a lot of my other points in that last post.

Your other points weren't written when I first quoted your post. And there is an edit stamp on your post.