House of Eratosthenes

Two subjects, completely unrelated to each other, are in need of a good revisiting. The need is substantially greater than what would be served by simply adding material to the posts themselves, which would then never be read by anyone. But for each of the updates to receive a brand-new post would be too…well, let’s call it “bloaty.” So they shall share one.

One. The AP/Ipsos poll saying people are tired of a Republican Congress and ready for a change by a ratio of 3:1. Duffy of Pencader Days made the point (made elsewhere) that the voters sampled were registered voters, not likely voters. This is an important distinction during Presidential elections, and during midterms it’s an even more important distinction. There are many other things in the “pie” of what’s wrong with this poll, of which my comments have only captured a tiny “slice.” Many other things. Via Crush Liberalism, our attention is drawn to the post at Sweetness & Light which fairly demolishes the one weighty pronouncement to be made from the poll results:

That�s a 12% advantage to the Democrats.

So a group of people comprised of 12% more Democrats than Republicans was asked who should run Congress. And they answered Democrats by a 11% advantage.

That actually sounds like a 1% win for the GOP.

A pointless quibble, or not? Well…whoever decided the 11% was worth crowing about, already settled that question. Twelve is more than eleven. That’s just simple mathematics. Crush Liberalism has put some more elbow grease into trying to capture everything that’s bollywonkers with this crazy poll than we have, and thus achieved greater results. Head on over.

Two. About liberals and their studies…

…the conservatives use their noggins as crystal balls. Raise taxes, and people will turn into cheapasses. Take guns away, burglars and rapists will break into whatever house they want to, knowing there’s no guns in there. Make a bunch of rules about not being able to fire teachers, and you’ll be left with a bunch of incompetent teachers. It’s all cause and effect. Liberals get hold of “studies,” and if the study is something they like, they promote it, otherwise they’ll sit on it.
:
You can’t crack this study open, you can’t find out why it took place over fifty years, you can’t find out how it was affected during those fifty years, you can’t even find out who did it. Oh sure you can, maybe, with difficulty. But rest assured of this: The liberal who wants you to “read” the study — in other words, simply adopt the conclusion of the study, as interpreted by the liberal, as your own opinion — won’t be standing shoulder-to-shoulder with you if you choose to do this. And he damn sure won’t volunteer anything making it easier for ya.

Thus speaketh me, in the third installment of my exploration of how liberals think differently from real people. Well, Carl read the first installment, which just touched on the “study” issue in a couple places, not making a primary focus out of it, and I guess even there he must have skimmed over those parts. Clearly, in whatever material he managed to swim through, he didn’t like what he saw.

Except…

19 states have minimum wages that are higher than the Federal minimum. All 19 raised wages since the Federal minimum was set where it is now.

All 19 have employment statistics better than the national average.

Not one study shows that raising the minimum wage creates job loss. In fact, MOST studies show raising the minimum wage creates jobs by creating a bigger middle class.

Your class warfare has to stop.

Now perhaps Carl is being sarcastic in some way, or maybe his reading comprehension is way down and he doesn’t understand the nature of a financial transaction, or perhaps he doesn’t believe that’s what a job is. It doesn’t matter, he’s made the point beautifully. A conservative says “you sell X many widgets at $4 a pop, and Y many at $5, Y is bound to be less than X.” This is a simple economic truism. If you inundate it with more complicated economic truisms, the simple one doesn’t change. Charge more for something, and the activity involved in distributing that thing, will slow or stop.

I was going to start debating Carl about this. Then I thought, what is the point? To pose the obvious rhetorical question, is a futile exercise. He can’t walk me through what happens when a higher price is artificially imposed on a commodity, over and above what the market would naturally support, and the higher price results in increased activity just because a class gets “bigger.” I doubt Carl can even tell me what “bigger” is. What’s “bigger”? A higher nose-count? Increased wages? Both? Neither? It’s an extravagant notion to suppose I’m even expected to figure it out. The intent, clearly, is — as I said in the passage Carl chose not to read — to outsource my thinking to a study.

Sorry Carl. This is the House of Eratosthenes. A guy who peeked into holes in the ground and figured out how big the earth is, notwithstanding the fact that his “day job” was caretaking a library. The “House of some guy who believed the earth is flat because a study told him to think so” is…I dunno…out there somewhere. Not here.

But anyway, this is a harbinger of fun conversations ahead. Your blog, Simply Left Behind, has been sent to the sidebar with the liberal hippy turquoise icon next to it. Yeah, we sidebar left-wing blogs here if we think they’re worth reading.

Update: Some of the Technorati trackbacks are scrolling, disappearing & coming back again (maybe), or leading to other pages that scroll…

What Is a Liberal? is linked from, among other places, Pittsburgh Bloggers and at The Heat Is On.

Update 7/17/06: Common Sense Junction makes a good point about this post and the doublet of topics addressed herein. Topic 1 is about a survey of voters being given a heavy liberal spin, and Topic 2 is about liberals depending irrationally on “studies” when they can’t make a persuasive argument about how things are going to work. There’s a lot of overlap between the two. To say “those are the same subject,” is to assert something logically incorrect…to say nothing of grammatically incorrect as well. But I said “completely unrelated” which doesn’t bear up under any more durably under scrutiny. Point taken.

Well, Mickey, or whatever the fuck your name is, I’m honored to be included in your sidebar, such as it is, and it’s an honor I’ll recall for as long as I care.

What were we talking about again?

Listen, facts is facts, and I realize for you, facts are stupid things, but you can’t deny the absolute honest truth of those surveys. Raising the minimum wage has had absolutely no adverse effect on job growth, no matter how much you stomp and kick and hold your breath til you’re blue in the face, Amy.

Now, I have a degree in finance and accounting. I can probably argue rings around you, but I’m more interested in watching my hit count grow from the dozens…tens…ok, since we’re talking right wingers, ones of people you’ll be sending my way with your…what was it you did for me again?
- Carl | 07/15/2006 @ 11:02
It’s always nice to see that reading comprehension and critical thinking have a “special” place in the way degrees are handed out. Thanks fer playing!

(Note to self: Make sure this guy is out of eyesight before you deny the truth of the surveys.)
- mkfreeberg | 07/15/2006 @ 12:01
“A conservative says ‘you sell X many widgets at $4 a pop, and Y many at $5, Y is bound to be less than X.’ This is a simple economic truism.”

very simple, indeed. however, your analogy ius flawed: in raising the minimum wage, x is no longer a consideration.

as for your “11% versus 12%”, it’s only relevant in a presidential election. that anomolous 1% may decide all seats, some seats or only one seat, no way of knowing. but you should expect dem gains to excede losses this year. that’s for house, senate and governor seats.

and jonathan leffingwell is a jackass whose logic is as flawed as your own.

KEvron
- KEvronius | 07/15/2006 @ 12:40
Carl is, of course, wrong. Some little known outfit called US Congress released a study of 50 years of minimum wage research. You can read it here: http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/minimum/50years.htm
- Duffy | 07/17/2006 @ 10:51

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

RevisitingSaturday, July 15th, 2006

Revisiting
Saturday, July 15th, 2006