4 ms·
Milton Friedman was correct: because the true minimum wage is $0.00 (unemployment), he was correct to compare wage increase to the null hypothesis. The potshot
by Konohamaru 3y ago
Milton Friedman was correct: because the true minimum wage is $0.00 (unemployment), he was correct to compare wage increase to the null hypothesis. The potshot in the opening paragraph ("Milton feels bad about the unemployed but good about his theory.") is simultaneously an appeal to emotion and a presumptuous ad hominem.
- constantcrying 3y agoThe point isn't that Friedman is right or wrong, but that the statistic model tells him to reject his hypothesis, even though he observed a result consistent with his hypothesis. >is simultaneously an appeal to emotion and a presumptuous ad hominem. I don't see how that is the case.
- ggm 3y agoBecause it makes Friedman heartless. He feels bad but he still promulgated theories which wreaked the badness he felt bad about. So it goes to character. If he _really_ felt bad, he'd have done what Norbert Weiner did and move out of the field. He stayed an economist. Not so bad feeling, eh?
- constantcrying 3y agoPredicting a negative effect is extremely common in science effecting humans. No reason to abandon a field. >but he still promulgated theories which wreaked the badness he felt bad about No. His prediction was that increasing the minimum wage leads to increased unemployment. He predicted a negative effect and a negative effect happened. None of this has to do with article, which makes a very simple point about statistics.
- ggm 3y ago> None of this has to do with article, which makes a very simple point about statistics. I am addressing a 'how is this ad hom' question not Friedman's character or the article. I seek to explain what view of him would be a critique of character not substance.
- constantcrying 3y agoIt isn't an adhom because it is irrelevant.
- ggm 3y agoThis isn't a very good line of reasoning because it's a non sequiteur. At this point I think you're trolling more than discussing rationally.
- constantcrying 3y agoIt is an article about a statistical concept.
- travisjungroth 3y agoPotshot? It just seems like a joke, but one that puts this character (a nod to Milton Friedman but not like a serious insert) in a positive light. He’s pleased by being correct but sympathetic since he was right about something bad happening to people (unemployment).
- systemvoltage 3y agoIf anyone that’s taking potshots, it’s the author.