Yes, let's stick to the news sources that are unbiased like...

I love this argument. Left wing nuts expand the welfare state to no end. And then point out that people are using the endless welfare programs. Then that is somehow reason to do even more idiotic left wing nut policies so we can reduce usage of welfare programs.

Before I get stuck in an infinite loop of left wing idiocy, I would like to ask: if your goal is to control welfare spending, then why the hell do you keep expanding welfare programs?

The most hilarious part is that your prime example was Medicaid. It was you left wing nuts that just told us in 2009 that we had to expand Medicaid to everyone and their brother in order to achieve health care utopia. And now you're complaining that a lot of people are on Medicaid? You set the fscking eligibility criteria!

Go away, clown.

Sorry, but why do I give a damn about the level of consumption of anyone else? You say I am happiest when everyone consumes the same amount? It would be nice to see an explanation of that, because I don't get it.

Making the min wage $15/he does not mean bob gets $15/hr. Bob will get whatever the local unemployment compensation agency determines is the right amount of money.

Then why not raise the min wage much more?

You thought you were avoiding the trap of his question, but the reality is all answers lead you to a trap, because raising the minimum wage is dumb policy. Your bell curve comment makes no sense and I think a bell curve is not what you mean. What you mean, I think, is that raising the min wage improves the lives of everyone or at least a subset of socioeconomic strata, then at some point you get diminishing returns for that subset, and then at some point you actually have negative consequences for that subset. So assuming that is what you mean, that isn't a bell curve concept, but I get why you said that. Let's assume that's what you mean.

Unfortunately, that does not make sense. You seem to have ignored the very valid point my friend made at the end of his post, which is unfortunate because that was the KEY point. Most policies like this only sound good if you assume an otherwise static economy. But that's silly. In this case, if Sally's work output is worth $13 per hour to the company, so long as her wage is less than $13 per hour, she is likely to have a job available (gross oversimplification, but true enough for the purposes of this discussion). Now suppose Sally's city imposes a $14/hr min wage. Sally is ecstatic about getting a raise until she instead gets a pink slip. This is because the company will produce less output. The company will not produce incremental output from Sally, because every hour Sally works means a loss of $1 in profit. An actual loss of $1 per hour; don't get confused and think I am referring to a loss relative to a lower wage. I am speaking about Sally being a net negative on the company's financial viability because every hour of her work costs $14 but her output is only worth $13. The company will let Sally go. Further, this is what should happen to keep the economy healthy; otherwise you are pumping $14 into a machine and getting $13 out of it, when an economy is supposed to do the opposite.

So the mistake your side makes is misunderstanding that at every incremental raise of the min wage, jobs are lost. It doesn't matter that workers have more money to spend, unless that increase in volume leads to inflation of prices, this resulting in Sally's output being worth $14+ from inflation. But your side insists min wage increases do not cause inflation and only lead to higher demand (volume). If volume demanded increases without inflation, that actually has no impact because Sally's company will not produce more units at negative margin. In fact Sally's company will produce less than before the increase in demand.

And if it does lead to inflation, Sally may not get canned, but that is a regressive cost that will hurt many lower wage workers and definitely the unemployed, whose benefits are not indexed to local inflation.

And taxi drivers. Stop uber!

Customers create demand but only at certain prices does that demand turn into a transaction. Ignoring the capital required to turn theoretical demand into actual demand is dumb. People who say customers create jobs have an an agenda and don't really believe that follows logically, because how could they be that dumb?

The point is just that the absence of an indicator is not an indicator of absence, and people use this argument as evidence that things are not changing now. That assumes stasis and it assumes linearity. When "things change" on important dimensions, it can be very rapid non-linear change, and that change is accelerated when everyone thinks things don't change and are fragile as a result.

You got pretty defensive there. Perhaps you realized I had a good point. Do yourself a favor and read some of the many great conservative and libertarian authors and philosophers. You will either realize your error or have a much more sound understanding of why you disagree with them.

It is just as much of a logical fallacy to use past examples of times not changing as proof that times are not changing now. If someone cries wolf, past cryings of wolf do not change the probability that there is a wolf.

Basing your voting pattern by convincing yourself that everyone on the other side is stupid/bigoted/uneducated/crazy is as intellectually weak as you can be.

Lead acid batteries need to be vented, meaning they need to be stored inside with a special vent or outside, in which case you have a problem regulating temperature. And they have to be regularly maintained, which is not exactly straightforward enough for the general hoopleheads

a study finding no link does not confirm the absence of a link.