[albatruss]

It's totally valid to see it as meaningful, but it doesn't really belong in a polemic titled "Against Hickelism" if it isn't what the target even believes. From the cited rebuttal:

> Smith says we need to recognize increases in income that happen below $7.40. Such increases improve the lives of the poor, he points out, and we shouldn’t let that get obscured. I absolutely agree. Once again, I have not argued that we shouldn’t pay attention to low-level increases in income.

[pm90]

The article addresses this too, and I feel like I'm not having an argument in good faith, so I'm going to respectfully bow out.

[albatruss]

The article recognizes it, which I should have pointed out (on phone), but as far as addressing it there is only this line:

> Except in all his later writings, he has relentlessly refused to pay attention to those increases.

No examples are given. The next claim about moving the goalposts also is unsubstantiated. It might be true but I don't see where Hickle had ever moved the goalpost from $7.40.

I don't have a dog in this race. If you feel like I am somehow mistaken then please point it out, preferably without attacking my character. Of course you are under no obligation.