[anonuser123456]

>Neither side can disprove the other and things just get more heated as we talk past one another.

Woh woh woh. Back the truck up. One side has a hypothesis that can be subjected to falsification. The other says "A wizard did it. Trust me."

The debate on minimum wage is an emperical question that both models fail and succeed on various tests. It's a truly hard question to answer and likely has no stable model.

Completely 110% different types of logical incongruity.

[_5ysi]

Agreed? An empirical claim that $15 minimum wage is better than $10 could be proven false by some set of metrics and controls. That $1 is better than zero? That is a different type of argument, and one for which expounding upon the scientific method is irrelevant.

The belief in chasing a continuous optimum is as much a belief as choosing the endpoint, so I think there is disagreement about what the debate is.