7 ms·

> ”You would quickly find that the market is too small to be worthwhile.” How many markets will be too small to be worthwhile after prices increase? I would wa

> ”You would quickly find that the market is too small to be worthwhile.” How many markets will be too small to be worthwhile after prices increase? I would wager it would be more than the contrary

uoaei 5y ago
This kind of fallacious reasoning is very pernicious. It assumes very simple cause-effect relationships by default. See "fallacy of the single cause". It cannot be countered except by elaborating on the complexities of this particular example. Which are then promptly dismissed out of hand because they are "special cases". And as a result, the person using this rationale never learns their lesson that, actually, the world is much more complicated than that, and this kind of simple 1-2-3 doesn't fit with basically anything except those processes which are determined primarily by averages.
jedberg 5y ago
Probably a lot. And they won't be served anymore. All the more reason the government has to mandate serving disabled people. You're arguing that the free market will serve disabled people. That's been tried many times, and it never works out. That's why the government mandates serving disabled people. And let's not even talk about the ethics of suggesting that disabled people get charged more just for being disabled, something they don't have control over.
jakelazaroff 5y ago
Why do you think prices will increase so much? There's a limit to how much people can pay for a service, even if they fundamentally need it. And I'd wager that in aggregate, people with disabilities are more financially limited than people without.
- GaryTang 5y ago
  What comes to mind is the fact that the prevalence of adults with a disability in the United States is significantly higher in rural areas compared to large metropolitan areas and those rural areas are already underserved by commuting options given the current model. To your point that they are more financially limited — that is the reason why disability benefits exist.

uoaei 5y ago

This kind of fallacious reasoning is very pernicious. It assumes very simple cause-effect relationships by default. See "fallacy of the single cause". It cannot be countered except by elaborating on the complexities of this particular example. Which are then promptly dismissed out of hand because they are "special cases". And as a result, the person using this rationale never learns their lesson that, actually, the world is much more complicated than that, and this kind of simple 1-2-3 doesn't fit with basically anything except those processes which are determined primarily by averages.

jedberg 5y ago

Probably a lot. And they won't be served anymore. All the more reason the government has to mandate serving disabled people. You're arguing that the free market will serve disabled people. That's been tried many times, and it never works out. That's why the government mandates serving disabled people. And let's not even talk about the ethics of suggesting that disabled people get charged more just for being disabled, something they don't have control over.

jakelazaroff 5y ago

Why do you think prices will increase so much? There's a limit to how much people can pay for a service, even if they fundamentally need it. And I'd wager that in aggregate, people with disabilities are more financially limited than people without.

GaryTang 5y ago
What comes to mind is the fact that the prevalence of adults with a disability in the United States is significantly higher in rural areas compared to large metropolitan areas and those rural areas are already underserved by commuting options given the current model. To your point that they are more financially limited — that is the reason why disability benefits exist.