So there we were on the floor of the Virginia House of Delegates.

We're debating the minimum wage.

And I made the argument that if you raise the minimum wage,

if the government basically engages in a form of price fixing,

that that could have adverse effects,

not just for small business owners,

not just for people that do business with these organizations,

but it could have adverse effects on those people that are

actually seeking those jobs because what you've effectively done in the laws, you've made it

more expensive to hire them. And one of my colleagues got up, who's very well educated, PhD in

economics, MIT, and we had an exchange. And what I found fascinating about that exchange is that later on,

a lot of my colleagues on the left just said, oh my gosh, she did such a great job refuting your

argument. And I was confused because I certainly answered her questions. And I'm sure she feels like

she answered my questions. But later on, what I kept getting hit with is, well, she's an expert.

We're going to discuss today on whether or not that is a valid argument.

Does someone being a quote expert in a particular field mean that they're automatically correct?

Because I think a lot of us have been bludgeoned with that sort of argumentation over

the last few years and many of us are starting to become frustrated with it as the experts,

or so-called experts, continually prove to be wrong on critical issues. All of that coming up on

this episode. And another question we will be answering today, thanks to Tina, is, can you have an opinion if you're not an expert?

Thank you for joining us on this episode of making the argument.

We would love to get your thoughts on the argumentation that we discuss in this episode in our volley chat, which can go by visiting the description of this podcast, click that link, join, and say hello.

...