Rilla, what happens when the logic somebody employs is technically invalid? Do they still get to say that logic itself isn't perfect and instead cherry pick some data? How about instead the person evaluates their own logic and upon seeing that it's invalid, they change it?
For example, here's a syllogism:
- Living standards increase only by increases in productivity
- Wage floors lower productivity
- Therefore, wage floors lower living standards
There is no question that the first two are true. The first is absolutely true because the only technically possible way for resources people use to live to increase is for those resources to increase. That is called productivity. The second is absolutely true because at every level of cost there are always resources that can produce that otherwise couldn't. This principle is integral to poker. The difference between winners and losers is marginal value. At every level or in any instance of a poker game, every move affects marginal value. A minimum wage is no different than making it illegal for poker players to defend their blinds with the weakest hands they think they can get positive value with.
Reply With Quote