Statistical references used as arguments

[Ism]

When discussing with reactionaries, nothing checkmates them as brutally as references to studies in favor of our arguments. I have some myself (but they only revolve around Denmark, which I assume you don't discuss as much as you would for example be discussing Europe in general, US, China etc.), but do any of you know some really hard-hitting facts that are easy to explain yet hard if not impossible to swallow? Like references to the development of the minimum wage, the unemployment rate, public opinion on capitalism and/or socialism and stuff like that? You know, trustworthy studies that help us agitating in order to to wreck capitalism.

For example, the RSA animate video on YouTube has helped me make upper-class kids who will perhaps never change views no matter how many times they realize they are wrong simply due to their class relations admit that I at least had some good points. At least that's something I'd say, especially when talking to a bourgeois high school kid.

[The Idler]

Statistics doesn't always persuade people you are debating with/against. Some studies suggests evidence to the contrary reinforces irrational beliefs.

[MarxSchmarx]

^^ What the OP likely means by "statistical arguments" are basically just conclusions from social science about the empirical nature of society.

I think probably the most powerful statistical arguments out there that go against the prevailing "socialism would make people lazy" ideology are that most people would want to continue working and being productive in some capacity even if they didn't have to (apparently this is called the "lottery question" in the academic literature):

The so-called ‘lottery question’, asking, ‘Would you stop or continue working if there were no economic reasons to carry on working?’ was utilized to evaluate non-financial employment commitment. Results of a representative sample of the labour force in seven countries (n = 8763) showed that between 68.8 per cent (in Great Britain) and 93.4 per cent (in Japan) of the workers indicated a desire to continue working.Harpaz, I. (1989), Non-financial employment commitment: A cross-national comparison. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62: 147–150.

[Ism]

^^ What the OP likely means by "statistical arguments" are basically just conclusions from social science about the empirical nature of society.

I think probably the most powerful statistical arguments out there that go against the prevailing "socialism would make people lazy" ideology are that most people would want to continue working and being productive in some capacity even if they didn't have to (apparently this is called the "lottery question" in the academic literature):
Harpaz, I. (1989), Non-financial employment commitment: A cross-national comparison. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62: 147–150.

Exactly, that's what I meant. The numbers you gave me are a huge bomb for tearing the "human nature"-argument apart, thank you so much.

Otherwise, data about unemployment, inequality, inflation and other socio-economic parameters are public opinion polls are very, very welcome!