Nowhere in the article is meaningfulness to worker mentioned, just statistics. Statistics by themselves have little meaning, until they are interpreted and put into context. For example .5% change in employment over the course of a year for a specific segment of the population is not meaningful without greater context. If employment for women changed by .5% over a year, but now housing is completely unaffordable, that doesn’t mean that people have increased happiness by .5% . Interpretation is needed.
The article in fact does elaborate on the wage increases, as I’ve quoted. The choice you make to decide that “meaningfulness” only involves narrow comparisons to housing prices is personal, as well to call the wage increases the article talks about as meaningless. That is a trite and uninformed view that wholly ignores those who benefit from increased wages (maybe to pay for increases in housing and other things?). Should wages be stagnant (as the other user tried to say) then I feel that would also be meaningful.
These are not statistics in a vacuum. That is grossly misinterpreting the article, that is very clear on it’s assertions. I would hope that you could find a reliable source that argues that wage increases are meaningless to drive that point home as hard as you two are attempting to do.
to call the wage increases the article talks about as meaningless. That is a trite
Since the start of the pandemic wages have grown a few percentage points, housing costs have almost doubled. An order of magnitude difference…so yes the term trite is reasonable.
In reference to your unsourced personal opinion, yes, trite is accurate when compared with actual data. And as long as we’re dealing with unsourced personal opinions with no real data to back up the “meaninglessness” of wage increases (never mind the rest of the article), I don’t see much value coming from this conversation.
This is an (unsourced) opinion to say this is meaningless, and the article describes the meaningfulness of worker wage increases.
Nowhere in the article is meaningfulness to worker mentioned, just statistics. Statistics by themselves have little meaning, until they are interpreted and put into context. For example .5% change in employment over the course of a year for a specific segment of the population is not meaningful without greater context. If employment for women changed by .5% over a year, but now housing is completely unaffordable, that doesn’t mean that people have increased happiness by .5% . Interpretation is needed.
The article in fact does elaborate on the wage increases, as I’ve quoted. The choice you make to decide that “meaningfulness” only involves narrow comparisons to housing prices is personal, as well to call the wage increases the article talks about as meaningless. That is a trite and uninformed view that wholly ignores those who benefit from increased wages (maybe to pay for increases in housing and other things?). Should wages be stagnant (as the other user tried to say) then I feel that would also be meaningful.
These are not statistics in a vacuum. That is grossly misinterpreting the article, that is very clear on it’s assertions. I would hope that you could find a reliable source that argues that wage increases are meaningless to drive that point home as hard as you two are attempting to do.
Since the start of the pandemic wages have grown a few percentage points, housing costs have almost doubled. An order of magnitude difference…so yes the term trite is reasonable.
In reference to your unsourced personal opinion, yes, trite is accurate when compared with actual data. And as long as we’re dealing with unsourced personal opinions with no real data to back up the “meaninglessness” of wage increases (never mind the rest of the article), I don’t see much value coming from this conversation.
Once more you show your golden tower and how out of touch you are with the reality of the world rn
[citation needed]
Wanna try the “padding” thing again?
Hurr durr
I’m assuming that’s a “no” because you can’t defend your claim with reliable sources.
Thank you for playing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem