Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    TracyMorganFreeman

    + friends - friends
    1,161 link karma
    188,167 comment karma
    send message redditor for

    [–] "Incredibles 2" perpetuates the incompetent dad, doofus males, and superheroine women who can do everything a man can do and what he can't, supposedly "preparing our children for a future dominated by women" TracyMorganFreeman 3 points ago in MensRights

    Elastigirl's powers don't lend themselves to destruction like Frozone's and Mr Incredible's do though, and we're first introduced to the family dynamic with Violent already a teenager, so Helen has had over a decade of experience dealing with kids while Bob was primarily the breadwinner.

    [–] Belinda Brown: It's high time feminism was recognized as a hate movement TracyMorganFreeman 6 points ago in MensRights

    It has always been a movement for opportunism among privileged women, namely white women.

    [–] Ted Cruz was paid $36,000 by Comcast to write this tweet TracyMorganFreeman 1 points ago in WhitePeopleTwitter

    Digital cable is a fastlane beyond what internet gets and people wanted to buy access a la carte.

    [–] Minimum wage doesn't cover the rent anywhere in the U.S. TracyMorganFreeman 0 points ago in Economics

    The UN writes on economic rights that we have a right to "an adequate standard of living" which absolutely does not mean having to work until the day you die in old age.

    The UN isn't the arbiter for morality.

    You still rely on argument from authority I see. Do you have any thoughts that are your own? Are you capable of even defending other's arguments beyond repeating them?

    Also you're implying that "luxuries" should not be included in how we make a wage floor, which is an opinion I find disgusting.

    Ah yes why is it disgusting to think people don't deserve things that aren't required for them to live?

    [–] TIL that the European Union made it illegal to charge male drivers more for car insurance TracyMorganFreeman 1 points ago in MensRights

    That isn't discriminating. It's treating everyone the same. Some drivers may be more risky, but the company doesn't have a way of measuring that.

    That's still discriminating. You know some are more risky or less risky than others, but charge them the same.

    You are discriminating against less risky people.

    That's true, but they can compensate for those things by not driving at night, restricting themselves to well-lit roads, etc.

    The insurance company won't know whether they actually adhere to it though.

    Men can also speed less and drive fewer miles and reduce their risk too.

    However, if they do get into accidents due to this (or any other reason) then that can be reflected in the price.

    People seem perfectly okay with treating people with little credit history as more of a risk for a loan, despite no history of defaulting.

    That's because there's more to risk than what is known has occurred. There's likelihood of occurrence based on that quality. People with little credit history also haven't proven they're responsible in managing their credit.

    The simple solution that I proposed (start everyone at equal rates, and then adjust according to their own record) would not involve any discrimination.

    It would literally mean shifting the risk from higher risk drivers with no accidents onto lower risk drivers.

    It's true that we lack perfect information for new drivers, but we have pretty good information once someone has been driving for a year or so.

    We have pretty good information based on the driving trends of people based on their age and sex too.

    [–] Minimum wage doesn't cover the rent anywhere in the U.S. TracyMorganFreeman 0 points ago in Economics

    I don't think anyone asked for your opinion. I was giving my opinion because somebody asked.

    It's not an opinion.

    Needs: food, air, water, protection from exposure.

    Everything else is a luxury.

    You can't, for any individual, know the exact amount they need to save for retirement. But there is a general level of income that changes depending on your area, which will get you a life that IMO is not impoverished, and things like saving for retirement, being able to enjoy recreation, etc. is possible.

    So it's a moving target.

    What is included in "enjoying recreation"? Semi annual cruises to the bahamas?

    Meta studies are the authority in science

    And? Argument from authority is a fallacy.

    The fact that you implied you think a blog can stand up to them tell me you might not have taken a research course.

    The fact you think you can keep citing the study as sacrosanct and not defend criticisms of its methodology(while failing to actually criticize the methodology of what I cite) counts as a rebuttal or even an argument you have a fundamental misunderstanding in logic.

    All you've done is "this reached a different conclusion using a different metric".

    That's not a rebuttal. It's barely an argument.

    [–] Minimum wage doesn't cover the rent anywhere in the U.S. TracyMorganFreeman 1 points ago in Economics

    An argument without facts is pretty useless to me!

    Without empirical facts?

    Well toss out all of math then.

    Citing only an image of a publication tells me there's something else there that voids your argument.

    No it doesn't. You infer that because it's expedient.

    You gave data on an incomplete portion of degree-holders, so you literally don't know if the loss in one section was gained in another.

    It shows the unemployment rates of each education category. How is it incomplete?

    I believe that chart is based on one study, and is not a representation of a meta study

    And it uses a different methodology none of which are found in any of your studies.

    Also overaggregation will smooth out any apparent changes. That is the entire point of my criticism.

    They're literally doing their research on effects of employment on the minimum wage, and you think they're just too stupid to account for workers who leave the workforce.

    No I think it's expedient to not include it when looking at the data in a meta study.

    That's just putting your head in the sand.

    The irony of this is lost on you.

    [–] Minimum wage doesn't cover the rent anywhere in the U.S. TracyMorganFreeman 0 points ago in Economics

    So now your gripe is with how I used the term "unemployment insurance"?

    Sorry I have this character flaw in addressing what people actually say for lack of being a telepath.

    Nothing to say about the meta-study I showed you?

    I have repeatedly. You either aren't reading it or pretending I didn't.

    Someone else asked my opinion of what the line of poverty is, and I explained how it's not a standardized amount, and what resources I think people need to be considered out of poverty. Now if those people decide to spend all their money and not save for retirement, etc., that's their issue, but my point is they should have the choice to do things like save for retirement.

    Saving for retirement is a luxury.

    And you went with a nebulous term of "enjoy life" which simply means a list of luxuries that by virtue of people's infinite wants will be an ever growing list and thus a moving target.

    In other words it isn't an answer, because it isn't a measure(not even the extent to which can save for retirement). It's an appeal to feelings.

    You have provided no real concrete thought of your own here, just appeals to emotions and one meta study you don't fully understand to be able to defend its conclusions. You just cite the study as if its existence is proof it's correct.

    [–] Minimum wage doesn't cover the rent anywhere in the U.S. TracyMorganFreeman 1 points ago in Economics

    There are researchers who have been found cheating, and now they run shabby websites trying to make a living off of right-wing nuts.

    You're naive if you think biased think tanks are limited to the right.

    You not presenting anything citable isn't worth even looking at.

    Do you just not know what an argument is?

    You not pointing out faults within the actual citable research is another reason why I can say you're putting your head in the sand.

    I LITERALLY pointed out multiple faults, namely that looking at employment in the aggregate fails to capture any harm done to a particular set of workers if that set of workers is a small portion of the workforce.

    [–] Minimum wage doesn't cover the rent anywhere in the U.S. TracyMorganFreeman 1 points ago in Economics

    As a simple sniff test, what portion of the homeless are minimum wage workers?

    [–] Minimum wage doesn't cover the rent anywhere in the U.S. TracyMorganFreeman 1 points ago in Economics

    Women start to get less fertile at 25, so preferably, yes

    What? No.

    Teenage women are more likely to miscarry than 20 somethings.

    Women having more children when they want to is probably really good for the economy. Every one of those children will be a potential business owner or worker.

    And women having children earlier in their lives is an obstacle in their careers.

    [–] Minimum wage doesn't cover the rent anywhere in the U.S. TracyMorganFreeman 1 points ago in Economics

    Social spending isn't unemployment insurance.

    Let's add you're bad at what words mean to your litany of ignorance.

    Sure. I don't know what you even said, but yes.

    Hey look we've repeated the result.

    You seem to just kind of blindly paw in the dark and go with what elicits funny feelings you don't quite understand, don't you?

    [–] Minimum wage doesn't cover the rent anywhere in the U.S. TracyMorganFreeman 1 points ago in Economics

    Peer reviewed and held up to scrutiny of the research community

    Uh no, meta studies aren't necessarily either of those.

    and so has to compete with facts backed by data or else loses credibility and with it the grants/funding to function.

    That's adorable.

    I'm going to go with the citable researchers, and not some vague criticism not backed by data from a random person on the internet.

    Arguments are valid or invalid regardless of who presents them.

    You're basically admitting you don't know enough about this field to examine or defend the studies or their conclusions, and are just going with whatever expert agrees with you.

    The fact you have no rebuttal to the criticisms of the studies you cite is evidence of that.

    [–] Teamwork TracyMorganFreeman 36 points ago in interestingasfuck

    Not all of them were. The second wave were which makes sense as they can be lifted from below and from the guys above who first went up.

    [–] Minimum wage doesn't cover the rent anywhere in the U.S. TracyMorganFreeman 1 points ago in Economics

    just increase gov. unemployment insurance.

    Lol studies show the bigger the payment and longer the duration of unemployment insurance the less likely and longer people take before getting a job.

    That will do the exact opposite of lowering unemployment.

    To answer what I think it means not to be in poverty, is that you can save for a retirement, enjoy life, etc. That definition is going to vary from individual to individual.

    So a moving target of luxuries taken for granted.

    [–] Minimum wage doesn't cover the rent anywhere in the U.S. TracyMorganFreeman 1 points ago in Economics

    Any think tank can "conduct research." At the end of the day though what they're publishing is a blog.

    Lol what do you think a meta study is?

    But what research has shown has actually happened, is minimum wage increases causing 0 loss of jobs. That's why raising the minimum wage helps the population getting a raise from it.

    The fact you don't consider a change in the size or composition of the workforce belies your understanding of how unemployment is measured and studied.

    [–] Minimum wage doesn't cover the rent anywhere in the U.S. TracyMorganFreeman -1 points ago in Economics

    If you're an economist who thinks it does not matter whether people can form a family or not, you're probably a bad economist.

    If you think the timing of such things is irrelevant, then you're a bad economist.

    And it turns out waiting a few years to have children is economically rational, and won't hurt the birth rate.