So I think I can reasonably summarise the thread by saying there's a lot of sympathy to the idea that people should pay more for games so as to support designers and artists, yes? I mean, obviously not everyone agreed, but that seems to be the broad consensus. Interesting.

Quote from: D-503;903894So I think I can reasonably summarise the thread by saying there's a lot of sympathy to the idea that people should pay more for games so as to support designers and artists, yes? I mean, obviously not everyone agreed, but that seems to be the broad consensus. Interesting.

There is still the question which designer/artist.
And in the end the money will again go in the direction of those who produce material you can see a value in it and thus the problem that some are not able to do it as a full job still remains.

Quote from: D-503;903894So I think I can reasonably summarise the thread by saying there's a lot of sympathy to the idea that people should pay more for games so as to support designers and artists, yes? I mean, obviously not everyone agreed, but that seems to be the broad consensus. Interesting.

Funny, I got pretty much the opposite impression.

What a lot of people DO seem to agree with is "You can set any price tag for your work you like.  That doesn't mean I'll pay it."

Irony. It's not just for Christmas.

Quote from: J.L. Duncan;902077Yeah and adjusting for inflation minimum wage here in the US should be about $35 to $38 dollars an hour...

Quote from: Pat;902212Horseshit. Even the hyper-progressive Huffington Post agrees that, adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage peaked at $1.60 in 1968. In 2016 dollars, that's $11.00.

Quote from: J.L. Duncan;903867First off, don't quote the Huffington Post and call me an idiot. If you want to site something that's perfectly fine.

Maybe you'd listen to the Department of Labor? They show a peak in the inflation adjusted minimum wage (based on 2012 dollars) in 1968, and the inflation calculator (from the Bureau of Labor Statistics) linked by Pat confirms that the $1.60 in 1968 is just over $11 in 2016 dollars. That is very much less than $35 to $38.

Quote from: Pat;903890That's an interesting site. While it's apples and oranges (he uses 1947/$0.40 as the base, while HP/Inequality use 1968/$1.60, which accounts for the ~x2.5 difference when adjusted by CPI or inflation), it looks like a valid attempt to address some of the real issues that so often get masked and manipulated and misused in the various media.

But while everyone makes mistakes, if you don't like being called out for blatant inaccuracies, that's on you. One of the very real problems with the internet, and modern media in general, is the amount of sheer nonsense that's spread. People hear something they want to hear, uncritically accept it, share it, and it spreads like wildfire and becomes part of the established narrative. And once that happens, it's almost impossible to correct. The most effective way to combat that flare of irreason is to stomp it out, the moment it appears. And if even the Huffington Post couldn't come up similar numbers, well....

And if you think calling people idiots is an acceptable form of calling people out that's on you.

I could have also have referenced some sites and materials that would point out why economists come up with the number $35 an hour. Instead I choose to give you something that will partially validate your points because that's likely what you need. In the future I ask that you remain respectful. And that is all that I ask since I'm not willing to discuss other matters with you further.

Please be respectful.

Quote from: rawma;903940Maybe you'd listen to the Department of Labor? They show a peak in the inflation adjusted minimum wage (based on 2012 dollars) in 1968, and the inflation calculator (from the Bureau of Labor Statistics) linked by Pat confirms that the $1.60 in 1968 is just over $11 in 2016 dollars. That is very much less than $35 to $38.

Because the internet is never wrong..?
Because the government is never wrong..?

It is not about numbers, it's about the model that is used to calculate those numbers. As I said economist differ in opinion and those difference are often a matter of which is the appropriate model. My earlier post pointed something out using a very simple model to refute a posters point.

Numbers on a page don't mean anything. How did they get those numbers?

Certainly go ahead and PM it too me-if you find what you think looks like an accurate model. My wife has a BA in economics, it might make for some good pillow talk.

Sorry for the thread derail-

Quote from: J.L. Duncan;903867Full Stop-

First off, don't quote the Huffington Post and call me an idiot. If you want to site something that's perfectly fine. However, I have an even better site if you want to take a look and this one does an even better job of making your point.

Link: https://tedtheeconomist.wordpress.com/2015/06/17/the-minimum-wage-adjusted-for-inflation-is-biased-propaganda/

I hate to break it too you but economist are people and people often disagree. Economist disagree a lot. I might of said something else here, had my own sources to site so on and so forth (and I do) which could have contributed to the conversation, but once you call me an idiot, especially for a reason I can't really perceive-other than issues I'm not privy to, cause their yours; I'm pretty much done.

If you can't be civil please don't address my points.

I think you mean"cite" as in citation, not "site" as in location

Quote from: TristramEvans;903945I think you mean"cite" as in citation, not "site" as in location

Thank you, absolutely correct.

Quote from: rawma;903940Maybe you'd listen to the Department of Labor? They show a peak in the inflation adjusted minimum wage (based on 2012 dollars) in 1968, and the inflation calculator (from the Bureau of Labor Statistics) linked by Pat confirms that the $1.60 in 1968 is just over $11 in 2016 dollars. That is very much less than $35 to $38.

The relevant question is can you live on $11/hour with the same quality of life that $1.60 an hour provided? And even depending on what that quality was in 1960, was the minimum wage too low even then? From what I understand, a single mother trying to support herself and her family on minimum wage jobs would generally need to work two or three jobs just to maintain a level of existence that most people would consider poverty.

The only relevant data is the number of people who are willing to pay the price you ask.  If you get anything near minimum wage you must be doing something right.

Quote from: J.L. Duncan;903941And if you think calling people idiots is an acceptable form of calling people out that's on you.

I called you an idiot because you posted an idiotic claim, with no support. But I also treated you like an adult. I did not patronize you, took your assertion seriously, and provided an explanation, sources, and even pointed out why claims like yours are destructive.

You haven't called me idiot. But you've been patronizing ("I hate to break it to you..."), told me how I should post, refused to support your claim with even a single source, and just made vague kindergarten-level statements about how people sometimes disagree and the government is sometimes wrong, and that (unspecified) economists and your girlfriend agree with you.

No, you haven't called me an idiot. You're just treating me like a child.

Which in the world of adult discourse is a hell of lot worse than calling someone an idiot for doing something idiotic.

Quote from: Pat;903949I called you an idiot because you posted an idiotic claim, with no support. But I also treated you like an adult. I did not patronize you, took your assertion seriously, and provided an explanation, sources, and even pointed out why claims like yours are destructive.

You haven't called me idiot. But you've been patronizing ("I hate to break it to you..."), told me how I should post, refused to support your claim with even a single source, and just made vague kindergarten-level statements about how people sometimes disagree and the government is sometimes wrong, and that (unspecified) economists and your girlfriend agree with you.

No, you haven't called me an idiot. You're just treating me like a child.

Which in the world of adult discourse is a hell of lot worse than calling someone an idiot for doing something idiotic.

Hmmm...

So calling someone an idiot is ok. Patronizing them after they've called you an idiot is unacceptable.
I understand.

Anything else?

Quote from: Pat;903949I called you an idiot because you posted an idiotic claim, with no support. But I also treated you like an adult. I did not patronize you, took your assertion seriously, and provided an explanation, sources, and even pointed out why claims like yours are destructive.

I thought by therpgsite standards this was pretty good behaviour!

Just a note to anyone enjoying the drama.

If you call me an idiot I will patronize you. Neither will I have much interest in engaging your points.
If you cannot comprehend the concept that there is a difference between directly calling someone an idiot and saying that the point be made is false/misleading or idiotic, then their is little I can say to condemn the behavior.