Hacker News Reader

Comment by alacombe | Hacker News Reader

OOTH, it's not as if one of the Berkeley author, Michael Reich, was a long time socialist. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Reich:

In 1968, while in graduate school, Reich was a founding member of the Union for Radical Political Economics (URPE).[5] In doing so, as Reich describes in a biographical compilation piece (A Biographical Dictionary of Dissenting Economists),[3] he helped "to organize an influential circle of radical economists." URPE’s agenda, as described by a spokesperson for the group, is to:

"support an American version of socialism, with public ownership of production and a government-planned economy to meet social needs rather than the needs of private profit."

So he's very clearly biased toward proving minimum wage increase's success.

View on HN

> So he's very clearly biased toward proving minimum wage increase's success.

You may not have meant it this way, but that sentence implies you have already dismissed any point he makes purely based on what he believes in. Without any evidence, you've implied that any conclusions the author makes are automatically devalued because he will be incapable to undertaking objective research.

Would you write a similar sentence about say a medical researcher? 'Researcher is a member of the medical industry and is very clearly biased toward proving vaccines are safe and necessary'.

(Note: I think it's very important to be aware of influences and biases in hearing opinions - an important part of critical evaluation. Your comment does that for the most part ... it's just the last sentence I have an objection to)

Medicine and vaccines are science, socialism is ideology.

Sure but the alternatives to socialism are also ideologies.

Free trade or aspirations to such is/are not an ideology. i.e., "The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture. or "A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system".

Humans trade don't need theoretical underpinning to trade goods and services with each other. They have done it since the dawn of time. Even monkeys do it. I'll scratch yours if you'll scratch mine. And indeed it percolates down to the personal as well, as Eric Berne noted in Games People Play.

>Would you write a similar sentence about say a medical researcher?

How about "Anti-abortion activist doctor releases study showing that abortion in unhealthy." Are you telling me you wouldn't place the study under extreme scrutiny? When someone shows their ideological bias, and it happens to be extreme (yes, socialism is extreme), and then they also do science in the same field, it is absolutely appropriate to make their biases known and subject them to extra scrutiny.

EDIT>> Just saw your note that you agree about raising awareness to biases. It sounds like we agree on that.

This is a very different situation. There is still a huge amount of debate about the actual effects of minimum wage increases. This is not the case for vaccines any more. At this point, the evidence for vaccines is strong enough that pro-vaccine should be the default position. This is not (yet) the case for raising the minimum wage.

As a result, ideological biases are important to flag, and studies possibly affected by bias need to be replicated and cross checked.

>There is still a huge amount of debate about the actual effects of minimum wage increases.

There is? I would seem that the effects could simply be drawn from real world results in any other developed nation.

You mean the comparisons showing the USA had one of the lowest unemployment rates?

Should we disregard every capitalist's study that comes out pro-capitalism?

If we chose to follow that rule we would end up with very few studies in economics, and the world would be poorer for it.

Should we disregard every candy company's study that comes out pro-sugar?

Maybe we should, maybe we shouldn't but the studies for sugar and minimum wage spread wide enough that it's easy to see these convenient conflict-of-interests everywhere.

I think that is a bit of a straw man- a sugar lobby represents economic interests. Why would this man's ideological interests not match his academic interests?

Because they virtue themselves as doing unbiased data-based science, when they're just pushing their agenda. At least, the alt-right folks (Milo, Shapiro) are very clear and honest about their bias.

True. It almost seems that science and research as a whole is increasingly just a channel for pushing an agenda. I don't think we've advanced much in that regard. Anyone can fund a study and twist it to support their agenda or just not publish it. Then the media gets ahold of it and cherry picks what they want and use questionable headlines.

In many cases it results in consumer confusion and serious health issues (sugar vs saturated fat war you noted).

I'm sorry for those who, thanks to the MW are,

- because they are perhaps not very bright, maybe mentally-disabled (Downs syndrome people for instance), possibly just naturally very slow, inexperienced, very young, very old, physically feeble or otherwise considered to be unlikely to be productive would-be employees who

- are then legally prevented from getting a job unless of course the state wishes to force employers not to hire the most productive staff to be paid the minimum wage. And that's not going to happen in a free society and nor should it. Everyone has their value. But don't let's pretend that value (for a specific job) is the same for all of us.

Why would being a socialist mean that he is biased in favor of minimum wage? In no way is minimum wage a requisite for socialism. Plenty of social democratic countries (not technically socialism, I know) have no minimum wage because they have a system of organized labor that renders it unnecessary.

The GP means that since the author is not literally being paid by capital for a capitalist's desired outcome (e.g. https://www.propublica.org/article/these-professors-make-mor...) their research is biased and conclusions suspect.

So, let me get this straight: founding a group 49 years ago means that "he's very clearly biased toward proving minimum wage increase's success".

This seems like a lack of familiarity with the scientific method. First, there's a hypothesis about the world. Then, that hypothesis is tested against evidence. The origins of a seasoned researcher's hypotheses about the world and their ideas of what they would like the world to be are not enough to impugn their ability to evaluate others' study design or the integrity of their own hypothesis-testing.

At best, you've provided evidence for "he may be ideologically more pleased with hypotheses supporting the success of minimum wage increases being successfully supported by evidence".

> This seems like a lack of familiarity with the scientific method. First, there's a hypothesis about the world. Then, that hypothesis is tested against evidence. The origins of a seasoned researcher's hypotheses about the world and motivations they would like the world are not enough to impugn the integrity of their own hypothesis-testing or their ability to evaluate others' study design.

And yet the author of the article seems happy to impugn the motivations of the UW researchers, because his ideology does not agree with their results.

I don't see where the Perspectives contributor is using the UW researchers' motivations as the main thrust of his (not particularly great) arguments -- he seems to be interested in comparing study design at the very least.

And even if he was, it doesn't excuse alacombe.

People change. I think you need proof of current ideology to make a case. Soviet propaganda pre 1980:s managed to convince a lot of smart people to go ultra left. For instance, one of the most prominent bankers in nordic countries, Bjorn Wahlroos, was originally at far left in his political leanings.[0]

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Björn_Wahlroos

From the wikipedia article:

"Controversy Reich's analyses on the effects of minimum wage increases in his capacity at IRLE have generated controversy and accusations of bias from Los Angeles city legislators. Addressing IRLE's selection to analyze a proposed minimum wage hike in Los Angeles to $15.25, Democratic City Councilman Felipe Fuentes argued that "the selection of U.C. Berkeley, by perception, compromises the possibility of a fair and balanced discussion." Fuentes and fellow Democratic Councilman Mitch O'Farrell asked to reopen the selection process for a research team "so that we can engage in a process that is worthy of our employers, workers and their families, and the well-being of our economy."[14]

In March 2016, the Albany Times Union reported on hundreds of pages of emails from Reich’s research team that showed a close collaboration between the research team and labor union groups that fund the movement to raise the minimum wage. According to the article, “the relationship between academic and funder seemed explicit” with one uncovered email showing that the research team was seeking grant money to support its research "for local groups engaged in work to raise the minimum wage" and “testimony/media work” in California.[15]"

When you are getting accused of bias by Democrats, things are pretty bad.

Why are you attacking the Berkeley authors' honesty with a phrase like "On The Other Hand"? The WaPo piece only addresses the arguments and evidence, not the credibility of the UW authors.

WaPo bases its argumentation on the Berkeley study.

That's a pretty classic ad hominem.

You're saying that like it is a bad thing.

Maybe because being biased is a bad thing?

Everyone is biased. The people spilling gallons of ink, proclaiming doom and gloom for Seattle are, too.

We should stop hiring vaccine researchers that actually want to cure diseases.

All scientists are biased. We're human and we're opinionated about our fields. Unless you can show their bias affected their results, it doesn't matter.

I guess that makes you a bad person, huh?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com