4 ms·

By way of an unrealistic formalisation there you actually assumed that salaries are determined exclusively by labour supply and far more predictably and linearl

By way of an unrealistic formalisation there you actually assumed that salaries are determined exclusively by labour supply and far more predictably and linearly than possible. The complexity of the economy, greatly confounds simplistic formulas.

Chris2048 10y ago
So you're complaining because my post above isn't a more comprehensive analysis? I was responding to one specific point, not implying that the above formula is a complete model of the economy.
- strainer 10y ago
  Excuse me it was not a complaint it was a criticism breifly and carefuly explained to be constructive. I was pointing out that if you had wrote: "Assume salaries are determined exclusively, predictably and linearly by labour supply..." the position for your observations would be clearly flawed, so you would have to examine them more and find a better footing for them (which there may well be - i havent wondered). But you did write precisely that case in symbolic form - the technical value of formulas is that they are precise and we write them to be precise, so look at what you assumed there! Good day :)
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    You are suggesting that a symbolic form implies "precision", further implying "exclusive determination"? I disagree, in this case I used a symbolic form to prevent ambiguity, that is all. The relationship outlined is done so in a precise manner, but it is not comprehensive. also, you'll note I described the relationship as "is-a-function-of", which provides sufficient cover in any case.
    - strainer 10y ago
      If you used a symbolic form to prevent ambiguity how are you now calling on magic inside of an anonymous function? You even alluded to calculus with "dS(t)/dt" This use of maths was clearly completely stylistic.
      - Chris2048 10y ago
        > You even alluded to calculus with "dS(t)/dt" yes, to allude to a relationship to rate, hence reducing one form of ambiguity, (but not all possible ambiguities!). non-clarity, and purposeful ambiguity is different. Also, be specific on one aspect (in this the on the point I was trying to make) and general else where (any other unrelated economic stuff) is not uncommon or inconsistent.
        strainer 10y ago
        Ok if youre going stick with this its fine - its clear, that you use mathematical expressions to allude to things, not to define them. And that you find it not uncommon or inconsistent to base observations on clearly insufficient mathematical expressions, appealing to ambiguity in your math to carry such technique.
        Chris2048 10y ago
        Yes, you brought it up. > mathematical expressions to allude to things I spelled out the things I wanted to explicitly. > clearly insufficient mathematical expressions I don't think that's the case. I think you're inventing a problem. > appealing to ambiguity in your math to carry such technique. "carry", "appeal"? Again, the aim is not to provide a full economic model. If some parts are general (not merely ambiguous) and other parts specific, it is not because I am missing specificity in the general parts, but because those parts are not my focus. If you are going to throw around "insufficient" you'll have to define: insufficient for what?
        strainer 10y ago
        This... Assume dSal_dt = proportion * f(avg_lab_demand - avg_lab_supply) ...really is insufficient to conclude this: "Now, if you keep topping up supply from overseas, salary never increases as much as it might, as such it is limited - as such, salary rate increase is also capped; and it's not employees ... " It was just used as a gesture regardless of its actual mathematical meaning. "Assume" could honestly have been replaced with: "Resolve a general sense of this iffy expression which supports the following claims:" Math is not meant to be treated as an ambiguous medium, it is intended to explicate analogies and to manipulate them accurately. I understand you feel that is unreasonable, but it is what math is developed in order to be capable of and what it is used properly for. good speed with it.

Chris2048 10y ago

So you're complaining because my post above isn't a more comprehensive analysis? I was responding to one specific point, not implying that the above formula is a complete model of the economy.

strainer 10y ago
Excuse me it was not a complaint it was a criticism breifly and carefuly explained to be constructive. I was pointing out that if you had wrote: "Assume salaries are determined exclusively, predictably and linearly by labour supply..." the position for your observations would be clearly flawed, so you would have to examine them more and find a better footing for them (which there may well be - i havent wondered). But you did write precisely that case in symbolic form - the technical value of formulas is that they are precise and we write them to be precise, so look at what you assumed there! Good day :)
- Chris2048 10y ago
  You are suggesting that a symbolic form implies "precision", further implying "exclusive determination"? I disagree, in this case I used a symbolic form to prevent ambiguity, that is all. The relationship outlined is done so in a precise manner, but it is not comprehensive. also, you'll note I described the relationship as "is-a-function-of", which provides sufficient cover in any case.
  - strainer 10y ago
    If you used a symbolic form to prevent ambiguity how are you now calling on magic inside of an anonymous function? You even alluded to calculus with "dS(t)/dt" This use of maths was clearly completely stylistic.
    - Chris2048 10y ago
      > You even alluded to calculus with "dS(t)/dt" yes, to allude to a relationship to rate, hence reducing one form of ambiguity, (but not all possible ambiguities!). non-clarity, and purposeful ambiguity is different. Also, be specific on one aspect (in this the on the point I was trying to make) and general else where (any other unrelated economic stuff) is not uncommon or inconsistent.
      - strainer 10y ago
        Ok if youre going stick with this its fine - its clear, that you use mathematical expressions to allude to things, not to define them. And that you find it not uncommon or inconsistent to base observations on clearly insufficient mathematical expressions, appealing to ambiguity in your math to carry such technique.
        Chris2048 10y ago
        Yes, you brought it up. > mathematical expressions to allude to things I spelled out the things I wanted to explicitly. > clearly insufficient mathematical expressions I don't think that's the case. I think you're inventing a problem. > appealing to ambiguity in your math to carry such technique. "carry", "appeal"? Again, the aim is not to provide a full economic model. If some parts are general (not merely ambiguous) and other parts specific, it is not because I am missing specificity in the general parts, but because those parts are not my focus. If you are going to throw around "insufficient" you'll have to define: insufficient for what?
        strainer 10y ago
        This... Assume dSal_dt = proportion * f(avg_lab_demand - avg_lab_supply) ...really is insufficient to conclude this: "Now, if you keep topping up supply from overseas, salary never increases as much as it might, as such it is limited - as such, salary rate increase is also capped; and it's not employees ... " It was just used as a gesture regardless of its actual mathematical meaning. "Assume" could honestly have been replaced with: "Resolve a general sense of this iffy expression which supports the following claims:" Math is not meant to be treated as an ambiguous medium, it is intended to explicate analogies and to manipulate them accurately. I understand you feel that is unreasonable, but it is what math is developed in order to be capable of and what it is used properly for. good speed with it.