No, the conclusion that I reached is absolutely accurate. You seem to have misinterpreted my conclusion, leading to my desire to clarify the terms before putting down a wager. It would appear, given your refusal to answer a VERY simple question, that you don't actually want to bet. All you had to do was say so.
My wife worked at retail mom and pop stores for years, not a single one paid minimum wage, they were all generally $2-3 over minimum wage. Do you have any data to support your contention here or is it merely an assumption?
Most full-time employees at Wal-Mart don't work only the minimum 34 hours. Also, why on earth should a low-end job at Wal-Mart support a family of four? That is skewing the stats. I used to work at Wal-Mart. I liked my job there a lot. Where Wal-Mart fails is management. All the way from the CEO down to the typical department manager. They are incapable of monitoring/evaluating their employees properly, which leads to poor employees maintaining their jobs, and good employees not being properly rewarded. At our store cashiers received a higher pay rate than floor associates, so I'm surprised that the average sales associate makes more. I certainly think the cashiers should make more. They actually have to work, while many floor associates probably work less than 50% of the time they are on the clock. I've gradually moved away from shopping at Wal-Mart. Too frequent "outs," longer checkout lines, and often not really the lowest price.
I have had several clients over the years pay minimum wage, and more that offered 0 formal benefits to employees.
Nope, I sure didn't. The problem is that you don't think before you write, and as a result, you say things you don't mean to say. Here's your original statement: Without a doubt, your conclusion is "higher minimum wages lead to higher rates of job growth" (causality), and you cite the article to support your conclusion. However, the article explicitly states that it can't establish causality. I have no problem betting with you, but as anyone can see, you've already lost.
I can understand that... Heck, in some of these small towns outside of the city Wal-Mart may be the only option regardless of what time it is. That's where these super stores do a majority of the damage in my opinion and there prices aren't really cheap because they killed off the competition. Yea, if it's a family of four with two adults and one of them works at Wal-Mart are any non high paying job... Both adults should be working.
I'm sorry you have trouble understanding me, but that's your fault. I would look at your bias and consider that it leads you to assume things that simply aren't in evidence. This is the entire reason I sought to clear up what my ACTUAL conclusion was so that, were we to wager, it would be a bet based on facts rather than your assumptions. Your refusal to answer the question leads me to believe that you know my ACTUAL conclusion is absolutely accurate.
She never got benefits, but always got paid more than minimum wage. Not much more, but definitely more.
It's my fault you can't properly express yourself? Once again, here's the quote in question: There's only one conclusion in there. That's your ACTUAL conclusion. You later sought clarification b/c you knew you were wrong, and instead of admitting you were wrong, you tried to change your conclusion. Honestly, it's sad that you refuse to admit you misspoke, especially for something as petty as this.
Is it my fault you make assumptions rather than asking for clarification? I'm happy to admit that my initial statement wasn't clear enough for you to understand. However, instead of asking for clarification, you chose to make assumptions and offer wagers based on those assumptions rather than my actual conclusion. This continued even AFTER I clarified what my ACTUAL conclusion was. You could have chosen to ask for clarification, you chose to act like an a$$ instead.
You're right, I did make an incorrect assumption. I assumed that what you said was what you meant to say. I didn't expect you to change your argument and deny your original stance. The misunderstanding was entirely my fault. Apologies.
FWIW, when I worked at Walmart I made about $2 more than minimum wage, though that was back in 2006, shortly before the minimum wage went up. Edit: I think a lot of companies try to avoid doing only minimum wage for non-teenage/college employees.
Lets not try to win an argument on a technicality. Not a lot of jobs out there start out as "minimum wage". Even fast food starts you out a couple quarters over min. wage.
Several, actually. My fault was that I thought anyone with the requisite knowledge of statistical methods would make the correct assumptions and properly interpret my statement. You needed me to spell it out for you. I did nothing of the sort. I made a parsimonious argument that could be followed by everyone, with the knowledge that I was leaving out the nuanced portion of my conclusion for the sake of brevity and simplicity. No problem, just consider asking for clarification next time instead of making some challenge with which you aren't actually prepared to follow through.
Are you so afraid to admit that you misspoke that you'll talk in endless circles? Here's your original statement: Anyone with an elementary grasp of the English language can properly interpret that statement. There's a conclusion, a subtle insult, and a link to a supporting article. The problem was that your article didn't support your conclusion. And instead of being an adult and acknowledging your mistake, you tried to change your conclusion. The reason I didn't want to follow through on the wager was b/c you'd already lost. If you want to go forward with it, pay the tipjar $20.
Are you so incapable of reading that you have to act like an a$$ when it is shown that you don't understand someone's statement? I did misspeak, I made the assumption that people were capable of reading and comprehending my words along with the information provided by the article. I agree and you failed to do so, which doesn't speak highly of your grasp of the English language. Yes, it did. I'm sorry you found it challenging to properly interpret my conclusion, I fully admit that I should have written much more so that people with the shortcomings you obviously have would be able to understand. However, I chose parsimony over verbosity, actually thinking that anyone with a brain and the requisite knowledge of statistics would get what I was saying. You didn't, leading me to provide a clarification, yet you just can't seem to stop attacking me. I did admit my mistake, I should have been much more detailed so that there wasn't any room to misinterpret my statement. I have admitted this at least twice now, I'm not sure how you can continue to claim I didn't acknowledge my mistake. ROFL!!! So, you just proposing a bet based on your own assumptions rather than reality qualifies as me losing? Delusion, thy name is wekko.
Why don't you go back and read the article? B/c it clearly did not support your conclusion of "Higher minimum wages lead to higher rates of job growth." The author even explicitly states that it doesn't support that conclusion. Your statement establishes causality. The author of the article states that his data can't establish causality: Reading comprehension FTW!!!
I'm sorry you inferred causality from my statement. I did not mean to imply causality, the part I thought you could get from the article (and that didn't need to be explicitly stated by me) you have quoted at least twice now... "... it does provide evidence against theoretical negative employment effects of minimum-wage increases." Sadly, yours failed. When you didn't understand my original statement, you chose to attack rather than asking for clarification. When I provided the clarification in response to your silly wager, you ignored and continued attacking. I'm sorry that you are so stuck on my original statement, but I have offered clarification repeatedly. Have fun with your delusions.
You did not imply causality. You stated it outright: Regarding your statement, there's no such thing as "clarification" b/c the statement was absolutely clear. There was no room for ambiguity whatsoever. It was simply wrong. That's why, when I brought up the tipjar bet, your "clarification" changed your original argument. Basically, here's an example of your "clarification". GladiatoRowdy:....."2 + 2 = 5" Wekko368:..........."tipjar bet?" GladiatoRowdy:......"ok, but first, let me clarify. 2 + 2 = 4" Wekko368:............""
"The real tragedy for the poor is the poverty of their aspirations." That quote now applies to much of the middle class.
