5 ms·

Some quotes are really timeless and applicable to many contexts, in this case the first part (pulling out the knife a bit) could be about the progressive center

by jahaja 6y ago

Some quotes are really timeless and applicable to many contexts, in this case the first part (pulling out the knife a bit) could be about the progressive center-right and the latter part (denying that it exists all together) is more of the status-quo apologists like the above post. Heavily cherry-picked statistics (like "household" here) even though on the ground facts is so obviously different (house prices, student debt, health care costs, child care costs etc). "If you stick a knife in my back 9 inches and pull it out 6 inches, that's not progress. If you pull it all the way out, that's not progress. Progress is healing the wound that the blow made. They haven't pulled the knife out; they won't even admit that it's there." -Malcolm X

bhupy 6y ago
We typically use "household" numbers because you only pay rent once per household, not twice. You typically have only one set of expensive appliances per household, not 2 (or N), etc etc. That being said, this is a common (worthy) criticism, and there are 2 data points one can respond with: 1. Household size has actually fallen -> https://twitter.com/Mark_J_Perry/status/1307408040686235650 https://twitter.com/Mark_J_Perry/status/1307408040686235650 2. You can compute the "individualized" growth by accounting for dual incomes, and the outcome is still largely the same -> https://twitter.com/Mark_J_Perry/status/1307408040686235650 https://twitter.com/Mark_J_Perry/status/1307408040686235650 3. You can also just ignore dual-income households and observe what the reality looks like for single-income households alone, again similar outcome -> https://twitter.com/Mark_J_Perry/status/1307408040686235650 https://twitter.com/Mark_J_Perry/status/1307408040686235650
- jahaja 6y ago
  Your war of attrition style of argumentation isn't that impressive. The amount of time I would need to spend to counter your links is like 10x of the time you spend producing it - which is pretty obvious given how prolific you've been in this thread.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    You're right, dispassionately citing relevant metrics and sources to make a set of points is far less impressive than complaining about being out-argued. We should all aspire to whatever we call that style of argumentation!
    - jahaja 6y ago
      Out-argued? Don't flatter yourself. You're only spamming links in the hope that no one will bother looking them up. It's the same MO that your fellow status-quo apologist raynier and refurb do, in every. Single. Thread. Suggesting. Inequality. Look it up, I'm not exaggerating.
      - bhupy 6y ago
        Got it, so you’re not only incapable of actually engaging with arguments that are clearly cited with verifiable links, you also appear to have an axe to grind attacking other people totally unrelated to the discussion at hand. This is gold standard argumentation, I clearly have so much to learn from you!
        jahaja 6y ago
        I asked you to google a quote which take a minute to find at most. In this topic you consistently require folks to spend much more time to even come close to interpreting your links. Axe to grind? Yes. I do notice patterns that I don't really fancy, reactionary ones in particular. Aristocrats defending monarchy get little sympathy from me.
        bhupy 6y ago
        The vast majority of my links are literally pictures of charts and 280 character tweets. In general, when you make a claim, the burden is on you to prove it, and you should hence provide links to your citations. Imploring others to Google around to corroborate your own arguments (especially when — in your case — the arguments are incoherent) imposes that burden on the recipient. It’s far higher a burden than reading links that have already been supplied, especially when those links are tweets and charts. On only one occasion in this discussion, my links included research papers — but that was in response to claims about Piketty, a researcher. I generally expect people that bring him up to be able to parse research papers — a skill that you typically learn as an undergraduate.

by jahaja 6y ago

bhupy 6y ago

We typically use "household" numbers because you only pay rent once per household, not twice. You typically have only one set of expensive appliances per household, not 2 (or N), etc etc. That being said, this is a common (worthy) criticism, and there are 2 data points one can respond with: 1. Household size has actually fallen -> https://twitter.com/Mark_J_Perry/status/1307408040686235650 https://twitter.com/Mark_J_Perry/status/1307408040686235650 2. You can compute the "individualized" growth by accounting for dual incomes, and the outcome is still largely the same -> https://twitter.com/Mark_J_Perry/status/1307408040686235650 https://twitter.com/Mark_J_Perry/status/1307408040686235650 3. You can also just ignore dual-income households and observe what the reality looks like for single-income households alone, again similar outcome -> https://twitter.com/Mark_J_Perry/status/1307408040686235650 https://twitter.com/Mark_J_Perry/status/1307408040686235650

jahaja 6y ago
Your war of attrition style of argumentation isn't that impressive. The amount of time I would need to spend to counter your links is like 10x of the time you spend producing it - which is pretty obvious given how prolific you've been in this thread.
- bhupy 6y ago
  You're right, dispassionately citing relevant metrics and sources to make a set of points is far less impressive than complaining about being out-argued. We should all aspire to whatever we call that style of argumentation!
  - jahaja 6y ago
    Out-argued? Don't flatter yourself. You're only spamming links in the hope that no one will bother looking them up. It's the same MO that your fellow status-quo apologist raynier and refurb do, in every. Single. Thread. Suggesting. Inequality. Look it up, I'm not exaggerating.
    - bhupy 6y ago
      Got it, so you’re not only incapable of actually engaging with arguments that are clearly cited with verifiable links, you also appear to have an axe to grind attacking other people totally unrelated to the discussion at hand. This is gold standard argumentation, I clearly have so much to learn from you!
      - jahaja 6y ago
        I asked you to google a quote which take a minute to find at most. In this topic you consistently require folks to spend much more time to even come close to interpreting your links. Axe to grind? Yes. I do notice patterns that I don't really fancy, reactionary ones in particular. Aristocrats defending monarchy get little sympathy from me.
        bhupy 6y ago
        The vast majority of my links are literally pictures of charts and 280 character tweets. In general, when you make a claim, the burden is on you to prove it, and you should hence provide links to your citations. Imploring others to Google around to corroborate your own arguments (especially when — in your case — the arguments are incoherent) imposes that burden on the recipient. It’s far higher a burden than reading links that have already been supplied, especially when those links are tweets and charts. On only one occasion in this discussion, my links included research papers — but that was in response to claims about Piketty, a researcher. I generally expect people that bring him up to be able to parse research papers — a skill that you typically learn as an undergraduate.