Well, technically (and I could just be picking at semantics here) but it says employment increased, not that unemployment decreased.
Whenever you hear stuff about the unemployment numbers being down, there's always someone who says the numbers are not really down... it's just that less people are actively looking for work. A higher wage might be the incentive to cause some of the people not in the work force (but not counted as unemployed) go back to work.
Whether or not that is the case, it's still more people being in the workforce (no matter if they were counted as unemployed before or not) and should help boost the economy a bit. Theoretically, anyway.
Actually yes. Because as companies pay more for labor, people have more money to spend and buy products more, giving the business more money to spend on labor.
I already posted the first one here and got smashed down by rightwingers madscience and garote on totally unrelated topics. You'll be lucky if anyone argues it logically with you,.
For convenience, and in case you wish to continue our discussion, I'll paste in where we left off:
"I advise you to actually read the analysis this stupid image is based on, since it's becoming clear to me that you haven't. Specifically, examine the chart at the bottom, where it's clear that the assertion made in your cartoon is statistically meaningless."
I mean for fuck's sake, it's right there. The "employment increase by 45% more" figure is clearly a cherry-picked aggregate, taken from a set of results that actually show it to have no statistical significance.
So this is basic dishonesty, on top of equating correlation with causation.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2014-10-20 03:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-10-20 09:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-10-20 10:25 pm (UTC)Whenever you hear stuff about the unemployment numbers being down, there's always someone who says the numbers are not really down... it's just that less people are actively looking for work. A higher wage might be the incentive to cause some of the people not in the work force (but not counted as unemployed) go back to work.
Whether or not that is the case, it's still more people being in the workforce (no matter if they were counted as unemployed before or not) and should help boost the economy a bit. Theoretically, anyway.
no subject
Date: 2014-10-20 10:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-10-21 05:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-10-20 11:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-10-21 01:05 am (UTC)For convenience, and in case you wish to continue our discussion, I'll paste in where we left off:
"I advise you to actually read the analysis this stupid image is based on, since it's becoming clear to me that you haven't. Specifically, examine the chart at the bottom, where it's clear that the assertion made in your cartoon is statistically meaningless."
I mean for fuck's sake, it's right there. The "employment increase by 45% more" figure is clearly a cherry-picked aggregate, taken from a set of results that actually show it to have no statistical significance.
So this is basic dishonesty, on top of equating correlation with causation.
no subject
Date: 2014-10-21 07:16 am (UTC)