6 ms·
That doesn't really explain why right-wingers would want to focus on it as an issue. Why not focus on for example the effect of raising minimum wage on job vaca
by spuz 6y ago
That doesn't really explain why right-wingers would want to focus on it as an issue. Why not focus on for example the effect of raising minimum wage on job vacancies or wild fires contributing to climate change? Both have some amount of evidence for them. I'm not really sure I understand why "there is some evidence for it so it might be true" should be a criterion that particularly interests people on the right wing.
- MrRiddle 6y agoIt perfectly explains, but it sounds like you would like explanation why they’re not focusing on things you think they should focusing on?
- spuz 6y agoUh no not at all. I don't have an opinion on the issues I mentioned. I just think that if you put an issue into a category and use that as the basis of your explanation then your argument should also hold for all elements of that category. For example, if you ask me, why do I like trees and I say, because they are green, then it would be logical for you to ask if I like green apples and green cars because they are also green. If my explanation was valid, then I should also like green apples and green cars. The point is there are many many many theories out there for which we have limited evidence for. Given that, it doesn't seem to be enough to explain why right wing folks latch on to certain of those theories but not others.
- tom_mellior 6y ago> raising minimum wage This is an interesting point. If, as the article notes, one of the conservatives'/right-wingers' goals is returning to a "nuclear family" in an economy where "a single income can support a family again", then one step in that direction would be to move away from traditional conservative/right-wing policies on wage inequality.