9 ms·

"it demonstrates that exact relationship." It doesnt "demonstrate" ANY exact relationship, because you put an anonymous function in it! All it really demonstra

"it demonstrates that exact relationship." It doesnt "demonstrate" ANY exact relationship, because you put an anonymous function in it! All it really demonstrated is you were considering salary as preposterously simple function of labour supply with no other parameters. You basically just wont be told that your math was very blatantly bad, resorting to accustations of unreasonable complaint and now passive aggressive badgering. How many careful replies have i composed to try and gently explain to you that you should check your use of math? If you dont wish to feel "badgered" just get it and/or quit replying.

Chris2048 10y ago
> considering salary as preposterously simple function of labor supply with no other parameters. Or it's not a complete model of the many possible parameters relevant in the economy. "preposterously simple" needs qualification on why it is ""preposterous" given IT IS NOT A COMPLETE ECONOMIC MODEL. > It doesn't "demonstrate" ANY exact relationship It demonstrates the rate of salary proportional to some function of the difference in supply and demand. If there are multiple factors involved in determining a value, I can still represent the nature of the relationship a single factor has with that value. It's "that-exact relationship", not "that exact-relationship". I won't be told, because you're wrong. I don't "feel" badgered, I am badgered.
- strainer 10y ago
  "Or it's not a complete model of the many possible parameters relevant in the economy. " Your formula contained TWO terms, salary and labour scarcity. That was the entire economic model which was to be "assumed" "Ladies and gentlemen assume salary is a simple function of labour scarcity. Now, these ideas follow..." "What are you complaining about? How unreasonable. I dont like these replies. Stop badgering me!" Stop complaining. I dont have to be the bigger man and stop replying. Now theres an opportunity.
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    I've explained enough.

Chris2048 10y ago

> considering salary as preposterously simple function of labor supply with no other parameters. Or it's not a complete model of the many possible parameters relevant in the economy. "preposterously simple" needs qualification on why it is ""preposterous" given IT IS NOT A COMPLETE ECONOMIC MODEL. > It doesn't "demonstrate" ANY exact relationship It demonstrates the rate of salary proportional to some function of the difference in supply and demand. If there are multiple factors involved in determining a value, I can still represent the nature of the relationship a single factor has with that value. It's "that-exact relationship", not "that exact-relationship". I won't be told, because you're wrong. I don't "feel" badgered, I am badgered.

strainer 10y ago
"Or it's not a complete model of the many possible parameters relevant in the economy. " Your formula contained TWO terms, salary and labour scarcity. That was the entire economic model which was to be "assumed" "Ladies and gentlemen assume salary is a simple function of labour scarcity. Now, these ideas follow..." "What are you complaining about? How unreasonable. I dont like these replies. Stop badgering me!" Stop complaining. I dont have to be the bigger man and stop replying. Now theres an opportunity.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  I've explained enough.