Re:Uber seeks $7.75M settlement in California labor code cla...
by fiatjaf on Thursday February 02, 2017 @09:10AM
(#13550556)
I understand that you may think I did the same thing exactly, but the point is that my words have meaning, they are not proved in my comment, but "unemployment" has a clear and distinct meaning while "economic inequality" doesn't.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Uber seeks $7.75M settlement in California labor code cla...
by celticninja on Thursday February 02, 2017 @11:03AM
(#13551462)
Not only are they unsupported in your comment but mathewmcleod has proved them wrong with supporting evidence. My comment was to show that your statement without proof was pointless, I could say the opposite in the same way but it makes neither true. Mathewmcleod disproved your statement with attribution, feel free to do the same mine.
Re:Uber seeks $7.75M settlement in California labor code cla...
by celticninja on Thursday February 02, 2017 @06:55PM
(#13556256)
Is that a no I won't support my claims?
Re:Uber seeks $7.75M settlement in California labor code cla...
by fiatjaf on Thursday February 02, 2017 @08:21PM
(#13556825)
If "support" means statistics, then no, there is no valid support. All I can offer is logic. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_revenue_productivity_...
Is this (https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_principles-of-economics-...) hard to understand?
Or maybe you want something more rigorous: https://mises.org/library/theory-idle-resources-0