I think you'll find that many do, and I also don't know why anyone persists with making absolutists statements that are clearly wrong or can be shown to be so with barely any effort.

What does it contribute?

OK then please provide an example of a market for labor (since that's what we're discussing ITT) that has been "made more free" and that has seen wages rise as a result.

Those of the former USSR. There are many other examples that are also such low hanging fruit that I wonder if you were trying to get at something else with that question?

The absolutism was in no one believes it, by the way.

I'm willing to imagine that there was some point in USSR history at which this would have been the case, but please let's not pretend that this describes the period after the fall of USSR during which life expectancy dropped by a decade. The incomes of billionaire "oligarchs" are not reflected in the median income level.

By the principle of charity, I don't expect anyone to believe nonsensical things.

If you wish to cherry pick those years, then yes, you would find some non-Soviet years that were bad, but it wouldn't be a persuasive case so be my guest.

> By the principle of charity, I don't expect anyone to believe nonsensical things.

You're not being charitable, if you were you wouldn't have begun with hyperbole, then moving the goalposts when challenged, and now cherry picking. You don't seem interested in any case but the one you already favour.

Either you meant that time, which in light of public health numbers is obviously not a good example for the argument, or you meant some other time. If you care to specify some other time, we'll be happy to consider it. If you want to forget about USSR and nominate some other time and place, we'll be happy to consider that.

I make "absolute" or even "hyperbolic" statements because I'd like to learn something. If I'm wrong, some example to that effect may easily be provided. In doing so, I'm letting someone else win all the internet points because I care more about learning than about internet points. As you observe upthread, a statement in such form can be shown to be wrong "with barely any effort". I invite you, if you please, to expend that small amount of effort. However, absolute statements can't simply be assumed to be wrong. Absolute statements exist that are absolutely true. "Any living human will die if deprived of oxygen."

I grant that you've already expended a smaller amount of effort, to somewhat imply that you yourself (or perhaps others not present in this thread?) believe that less regulation of labor markets leads to higher pay, but in the absence of any relevant example that implication is itself suspect. We know that some people believe silly things, and some other people claim to believe silly things that correspond to their particular psychological commitments (this seems common in the context of religion), but those beliefs and claims do not prove their silly objects.