4 ms·

Please do the "things are better off today" bit with hospital services, college tuition, and child care.

simianwords 1y ago
Let’s be holistic and look at life expectancy? And child mortality? Also look at percentage of people who have degrees from universities? I agree things didn’t get uniformly better but it is clear that today is more preferable to live in than 50 years ago.
- kelseyfrog 1y ago
  No. Look at them directly. In terms of value and cost. Switching the rubric to fit the argument is dishonest.
  - simianwords 1y ago
    You switched the rubric first. The real consumption has gone up and cost of living has come down. Other things have gone up because things are not uniform. Shall we stick to real disposable income as the rubric?
    - kelseyfrog 1y ago
      Even if we accept your changing the rubric, that fails to reflect reality too. The gap between wages and cost of living has continued to increase[1]. I'm unsure why you would want to change the rubric to something that doesn't support your claims. What level of evidence would change your mind? 1. https://archive.is/Uaw4c https://archive.is/Uaw4c
      - simianwords 1y ago
        I can't be analysing stuff from a think tank with 2 to 10 employees. If you have more credible sources from bigger institutions I would be happy to look at it. I hope you can understand how this complicates things because every subject has many sides to it.. of course its worth looking at all but I do put my threshold at slightly larger institutes.
        kelseyfrog 1y ago
        Sorry, but having a epistemic standard conditioned on organization size is one of the most bizarre stances I've ever seen. It says, "I'm not in truth on the basis of fact, but because there weren't enough authors listed on the publication."
        simianwords 1y ago
        Yeah sorry real world doesn’t work like that. These people used a different method which was ripped apart in /r/badeconomics (true cost of living). If I had time I could analyze if myself but I’m not here to nor have time to defending against any rando theory in the internet.
        kelseyfrog 1y ago
        Let me get this right, you give epistemic preference to commenters in reddit? This is a parody, right?
        simianwords 1y ago
        You give epistemic preference to an institute that has 10 employees where Econ undergrads write the papers over official stats from the government?
        kelseyfrog 1y ago
        Organization size has no bearing on veracity. Veracity is a function to closeness to truth, end of story. Besides, if organization size did have a epistemic preference, then we run into obviously untrue and bizarre preferences. Maybe yours line up with these: Catholic Church (~1.3 billion baptized members) Red Cross / Red Crescent Movement (~97 million volunteers and members) Scouting Movement (~50+ million members worldwide) U.S. Department of Defense (~3 million, including active-duty, reserves, and civilians) People’s Liberation Army (China) (~2 million active personnel) Walmart (~2.1 million employees worldwide) Amazon (~1.5 million employees) Foxconn (~1 million employees) If they don't, you're just adding epicycles to a very flawed way at arriving at truth. Do you see this as a stable epistemic methodology you'd stand by elsewhere, or is it a situational tactic for this debate?

Let’s be holistic and look at life expectancy? And child mortality? Also look at percentage of people who have degrees from universities? I agree things didn’t get uniformly better but it is clear that today is more preferable to live in than 50 years ago.

kelseyfrog 1y ago
No. Look at them directly. In terms of value and cost. Switching the rubric to fit the argument is dishonest.
- simianwords 1y ago
  You switched the rubric first. The real consumption has gone up and cost of living has come down. Other things have gone up because things are not uniform. Shall we stick to real disposable income as the rubric?
  - kelseyfrog 1y ago
    Even if we accept your changing the rubric, that fails to reflect reality too. The gap between wages and cost of living has continued to increase[1]. I'm unsure why you would want to change the rubric to something that doesn't support your claims. What level of evidence would change your mind? 1. https://archive.is/Uaw4c https://archive.is/Uaw4c
    - simianwords 1y ago
      I can't be analysing stuff from a think tank with 2 to 10 employees. If you have more credible sources from bigger institutions I would be happy to look at it. I hope you can understand how this complicates things because every subject has many sides to it.. of course its worth looking at all but I do put my threshold at slightly larger institutes.
      - kelseyfrog 1y ago
        Sorry, but having a epistemic standard conditioned on organization size is one of the most bizarre stances I've ever seen. It says, "I'm not in truth on the basis of fact, but because there weren't enough authors listed on the publication."
        simianwords 1y ago
        Yeah sorry real world doesn’t work like that. These people used a different method which was ripped apart in /r/badeconomics (true cost of living). If I had time I could analyze if myself but I’m not here to nor have time to defending against any rando theory in the internet.
        kelseyfrog 1y ago
        Let me get this right, you give epistemic preference to commenters in reddit? This is a parody, right?
        simianwords 1y ago
        You give epistemic preference to an institute that has 10 employees where Econ undergrads write the papers over official stats from the government?
        kelseyfrog 1y ago
        Organization size has no bearing on veracity. Veracity is a function to closeness to truth, end of story. Besides, if organization size did have a epistemic preference, then we run into obviously untrue and bizarre preferences. Maybe yours line up with these: Catholic Church (~1.3 billion baptized members) Red Cross / Red Crescent Movement (~97 million volunteers and members) Scouting Movement (~50+ million members worldwide) U.S. Department of Defense (~3 million, including active-duty, reserves, and civilians) People’s Liberation Army (China) (~2 million active personnel) Walmart (~2.1 million employees worldwide) Amazon (~1.5 million employees) Foxconn (~1 million employees) If they don't, you're just adding epicycles to a very flawed way at arriving at truth. Do you see this as a stable epistemic methodology you'd stand by elsewhere, or is it a situational tactic for this debate?