Scott Walker: "Min. wage serves no purpose"

[SwimExpert]

That's not what he's saying. Williston, ND is an anomaly like Houston was back in the 1970s. I don't think you have a clue as to what is happening in the Bakken Shale that has made the local economy go to extremes.

If you reverse an isolated mega-boom into a bust, there are no jobs. Now, that's STILL an open labor market, right? That's what happened to Houston in 1986.

I'm well aware of what is going on up there. I don't see how anything I've said is inconsistent or contrary to the facts. The problem is that you are assuming the novel circumstances don't factor into the equation of the local labor market or the ability of workers to negotiate favorable wages for themselves. It's just another point of leverage at their disposal.

The simple fact of the matter is that companies don't hire people for PR brownie points. They do it because they have a need for labor. Leverage their needs, and you can produce a favorable outcome for yourself. Every single time.

 

[Conservative65]

Taxpayers should not be supporting someone because their skill level is low and they can't make it because of what skills they offer.

So they should just become criminals instead and rob you so that they can feed their family?

Is that your alternative?

I wouldn't be surprised if the lowlifes tried. However, they wouldn't like their alternative.

 

[Conservative65]

People should be paid a wage that they can live on

Even if that wage is above what their skills are worth?

How much is a person's skill worth?

The laws of supply and demand determine that.

To Liberals, the government should do that and ignore all the laws of supply/demand.

 

[Conservative65]

Guess what dude. You are already spending your tax dollars helping to provide basics for the poorly paid worker.

Maybe you don't read much, but a great many of the MW workers qualify for government assistance, be it housing assistance, heating assistance or food assistance.

How come you didn't already know that?

My tax dollars are being taken to support some low skilled, equivalently paid worker and that should stop now. Someone isn't poorly paid if the skills they offer and the wage the get are equal.

Since they are, and I already knew it, it's just another example of some unskilled retard getting something else they didn't earn thinking it's owed to them. Bet you're one of them.

Walmart LOVES the minimum wage.

It allows them to defer their employees' need for more income to the U.S. taxpayer. That's YOU, baby.

Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance

""""Walmart’s low-wage workers cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance including food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing, according to a report published to coincide with Tax Day, April 15.
Americans for Tax Fairness, a coalition of 400 national and state-level progressive groups, made this estimate using data from a 2013 study by Democratic Staff of the U.S. Committee on Education and the Workforce.
“The study estimated the cost to Wisconsin’s taxpayers of Walmart’s low wages and benefits, which often force workers to rely on various public assistance programs,” reads the report, available in full here.
“It found that a single Walmart Supercenter cost taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.75 million per year, or between $3,015 and $5,815 on average for each of 300 workers.”

From Forbes:
Report Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers 6.2 Billion In Public Assistance - Forbes

OH, here we go with the Walmart bullshit.

Is anyone forced to work at Walmart? Is anyone forced to shop at Walmart?

Get a life, grow the fuck up, stop the whining.

Come on red. What's bullshit about Walmart workers receiving public assistance. It's the facts asshole. Why you got a problem with facts? Wait wait......I know,. you a Republican.

Did Walmart put those public assistance laws on the books? Why is it Walmart's fault when congress passes stupid laws?

I agree with you, People who are working should not get public assistance.

Liberals who blame Walmart fail to get that Walmart is paying an equivalent wage to skills needed to do the job and that Congress, not Walmart, passes the laws that give a low skilled person something else for nothing.

 

[kaz]

Taxpayers should not be supporting someone because their skill level is low and they can't make it because of what skills they offer.

So they should just become criminals instead and rob you so that they can feed their family?

Is that your alternative?

So you're just paying them off so they don't rob us? That they would work harder just isn't something you believe they'd do?

 

[kaz]

Liberals who blame Walmart fail to get that Walmart is paying an equivalent wage to skills needed to do the job and that Congress, not Walmart, passes the laws that give a low skilled person something else for nothing.

Walmart also gives young and inexperienced employees a chance to develop their skills and get better paying jobs. They also give low end shoppers cheaper access to the same food. And for marginal workers who will just be cut out of the labor force with a higher wage, they give them jobs they won't have when liberals get their way and they will be entirely on the public dole.

Liberals sure are willing to destroy a lot of people to prove their compassion, no price is too high...

 

[The Rabbi]

Actually WalMart subsidizies the government many more billions because if they didnt employ those people they would be wholly dependent on the government. Dipshit.

Eh, not really. Market demand would still exist. If Walmart was not in the picture, other companies would eventually fill the void.

But not if they had to pay $10/hr or whatever to their help. At that point the WM business would be unprofitable.

 

[Conservative65]

Taxpayers should not be supporting someone because their skill level is low and they can't make it because of what skills they offer.

So they should just become criminals instead and rob you so that they can feed their family?

Is that your alternative?

So you're just paying them off so they don't rob us? That they would work harder just isn't something you believe they'd do?

They shouldn't get paid anything other than a wage equivalent to their skills not their existence. However, if they try to rob me because they don't have enough, they'll pay the price.

I don't believe they'll work harder. Not one claiming they should receive a higher minimum wage has yet to say what they'll do for a higher wage. They simply say we WANT more.

 

[The Rabbi]

and how much is that? is it the same in New york city as in Fargo ND? is it the same for a single person and a person with 4 kids? How much is required to "give someone a chance" in all the different places and all the different family situations? like most liberals, you never think things through, you just react emotionally.

They're paying fast food workers 15 bucks an hour in North Dakota, because of demand for labor,

and yet those same companies are STILL making money...

I can believe that. NoDak is hurting for people because the Bakken Shale is in a mega-boom and Williston is not exactly a big town. Housing shortage there, too. People just driving trucks are making close to $100K.

That pretty well shoots your argument about greedy employers. Do you think employers in ND are less greedy than in MA because they're willing to pay more?

Employers don't have a choice in ND.

What argument it shoots down is that places like MacDonald's can't afford to pay employees more if they have to.

Walmart will be hauling out the plastic bins in the next couple of weeks, and installing them in the employee areas to gather up donations for those fellow "Associates" who are needy....Their own employees.

They are a shining example of how a free market without any kind of laws to protect laborers works for THEM. The Waltons hold 4 positions in the top 10 wealthiest Americans: Christy Walton, Jim Walton, Alice Walton and S. Robson Walton: The Richest People in America - Forbes

Doubtless you'd rather see all those associates on the welfare line.

You dumbass, they are! Scroll back up to my post about how Walmart costs taxpayers $6.2 BILLION a year in welfare for their employees.

Actually WalMart subsidizies the government many more billions because if they didnt employ those people they would be wholly dependent on the government. Dipshit.

That's absolutely not true because if Walmart didn't exist there would be other retailers in its place hiring just as many people.

Just like the downtown retailers that were there BEFORE Walmart.

Walmart ran Mom and Pop out of business, not the other way around.

RabbiT is a fucking idiot. Absolutely the stupidest person on this board next to BLOWfish.

If you're here I couldn't be the stupidest person on the board.
You might see Mom N Pop stores coming back. With limited selection and higher prices, which is why they went out of business in the first place.
Gee, business is sort of hard for you to figure out, isnt it?

 

[Conservative65]

Liberals sure are willing to destroy a lot of people to prove their compassion, no price is too high...

No matter the price, it still won't prove compassion. Compassion isn't expressed by mandating other people be forced to support something another person believes in.

 

[Conservative65]

Actually WalMart subsidizies the government many more billions because if they didnt employ those people they would be wholly dependent on the government. Dipshit.

Eh, not really. Market demand would still exist. If Walmart was not in the picture, other companies would eventually fill the void.

But not if they had to pay $10/hr or whatever to their help. At that point the WM business would be unprofitable.

That's exactly why Walmart is so successful. They filled that void.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's absolutely not true because if Walmart didn't exist there would be other retailers in its place hiring just as many people.

*sigh*

Why does everyone, on all sides of the issues, insist on making silly arguments with imagined facts?

Studies have shown that "big box" retailers like Walmart actually have a negative impact on overall employment. They typically drive smaller businesses out, and hire fewer people than the sum total of displaced small businesses. This should be a prime talking point for your position. The fact that you don't know it, and that you make claims directly contradictory to it, just goes to show that your entire position is devoid of factual knowledge.

That's what I just said. Idiot.

 

[The Rabbi]

Actually WalMart subsidizies the government many more billions because if they didnt employ those people they would be wholly dependent on the government. Dipshit.

Eh, not really. Market demand would still exist. If Walmart was not in the picture, other companies would eventually fill the void.

But not if they had to pay $10/hr or whatever to their help. At that point the WM business would be unprofitable.

That's exactly why Walmart is so successful. They filled that void.

WM is successful because they correctly perceived that people, esp in smaller cities and towns, like to save money and have a bigger variety of goods under one roof. They cut costs in different ways and then used the savings to sell stuff very cheaply.
WM has saved the average American shopper over 3000/yr, and that's even if the shopper never sets foot in WM.

 

[NYcarbineer]

They're paying fast food workers 15 bucks an hour in North Dakota, because of demand for labor,

and yet those same companies are STILL making money...

I can believe that. NoDak is hurting for people because the Bakken Shale is in a mega-boom and Williston is not exactly a big town. Housing shortage there, too. People just driving trucks are making close to $100K.

That pretty well shoots your argument about greedy employers. Do you think employers in ND are less greedy than in MA because they're willing to pay more?

Employers don't have a choice in ND.

What argument it shoots down is that places like MacDonald's can't afford to pay employees more if they have to.

Doubtless you'd rather see all those associates on the welfare line.

You dumbass, they are! Scroll back up to my post about how Walmart costs taxpayers $6.2 BILLION a year in welfare for their employees.

Actually WalMart subsidizies the government many more billions because if they didnt employ those people they would be wholly dependent on the government. Dipshit.

That's absolutely not true because if Walmart didn't exist there would be other retailers in its place hiring just as many people.

Just like the downtown retailers that were there BEFORE Walmart.

Walmart ran Mom and Pop out of business, not the other way around.

RabbiT is a fucking idiot. Absolutely the stupidest person on this board next to BLOWfish.

If you're here I couldn't be the stupidest person on the board.
You might see Mom N Pop stores coming back. With limited selection and higher prices, which is why they went out of business in the first place.
Gee, business is sort of hard for you to figure out, isnt it?

That doesn't support your claim that Walmart creates jobs that wouldn't otherwise exist. In fact you've helped prove how wrong you were.

 

[The Rabbi]

That's absolutely not true because if Walmart didn't exist there would be other retailers in its place hiring just as many people.

*sigh*

Why does everyone, on all sides of the issues, insist on making silly arguments with imagined facts?

Studies have shown that "big box" retailers like Walmart actually have a negative impact on overall employment. They typically drive smaller businesses out, and hire fewer people than the sum total of displaced small businesses. This should be a prime talking point for your position. The fact that you don't know it, and that you make claims directly contradictory to it, just goes to show that your entire position is devoid of factual knowledge.

That's what I just said. Idiot.

No you never said that.
John Deere and INternational Harvester probably put many many people out of work too. Let's boycott them.

 

[SwimExpert]

Actually WalMart subsidizies the government many more billions because if they didnt employ those people they would be wholly dependent on the government. Dipshit.

Eh, not really. Market demand would still exist. If Walmart was not in the picture, other companies would eventually fill the void.

But not if they had to pay $10/hr or whatever to their help. At that point the WM business would be unprofitable.

No, the cost would just be passed along to the consumers. People will still need toilet paper and soap and everything else they get from Walmart. Let's not fantasize here. Walmart can pay it's workers alot more. The reason they don't is because they don't have to. Sure, raising the minimum wage would force them to pay more, but it won't stop them from raising prices. And higher prices won't stop people from buying, because they have a need for what they are buying. Personally, I favor a welfare charge back to employers who pay their people low wages. Walmart employees eat something like $5 billion in taxpayer money in welfare. That should be charged back to Walmart.

 

[The Rabbi]

I can believe that. NoDak is hurting for people because the Bakken Shale is in a mega-boom and Williston is not exactly a big town. Housing shortage there, too. People just driving trucks are making close to $100K.

That pretty well shoots your argument about greedy employers. Do you think employers in ND are less greedy than in MA because they're willing to pay more?

Employers don't have a choice in ND.

What argument it shoots down is that places like MacDonald's can't afford to pay employees more if they have to.

You dumbass, they are! Scroll back up to my post about how Walmart costs taxpayers $6.2 BILLION a year in welfare for their employees.

Actually WalMart subsidizies the government many more billions because if they didnt employ those people they would be wholly dependent on the government. Dipshit.

That's absolutely not true because if Walmart didn't exist there would be other retailers in its place hiring just as many people.

Just like the downtown retailers that were there BEFORE Walmart.

Walmart ran Mom and Pop out of business, not the other way around.

RabbiT is a fucking idiot. Absolutely the stupidest person on this board next to BLOWfish.

If you're here I couldn't be the stupidest person on the board.
You might see Mom N Pop stores coming back. With limited selection and higher prices, which is why they went out of business in the first place.
Gee, business is sort of hard for you to figure out, isnt it?

That doesn't support your claim that Walmart creates jobs that wouldn't otherwise exist. In fact you've helped prove how wrong you were.

They obviously create jobs that wouldnt exist. Only an idiot couldn't see that.
Oh, wait. Look who I'm talking to.

 

[The Rabbi]

Actually WalMart subsidizies the government many more billions because if they didnt employ those people they would be wholly dependent on the government. Dipshit.

Eh, not really. Market demand would still exist. If Walmart was not in the picture, other companies would eventually fill the void.

But not if they had to pay $10/hr or whatever to their help. At that point the WM business would be unprofitable.

No, the cost would just be passed along to the consumers. People will still need toilet paper and soap and everything else they get from Walmart. Let's not fantasize here. Walmart can pay it's workers alot more. The reason they don't is because they don't have to. Sure, raising the minimum wage would force them to pay more, but it won't stop them from raising prices. And higher prices won't stop people from buying, because they have a need for what they are buying. Personally, I favor a welfare charge back to employers who pay their people low wages. Walmart employees eat something like $5 billion in taxpayer money in welfare. That should be charged back to Walmart.

So you think prices do not influence buying decisions.
OK, whatever.

 

[kaz]

Liberals sure are willing to destroy a lot of people to prove their compassion, no price is too high...

No matter the price, it still won't prove compassion. Compassion isn't expressed by mandating other people be forced to support something another person believes in.

You know I was being sarcastic, right? The only one liberals care about is themselves. If they cared about others, they would be forced to deal with the reality of what their policies do to them.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

If you don't like the service Walmart is offering, don't shop there.

Walker makes a lot of sense.......if you don't require a minimum wage, employers will pay two or three times that out of the goodness of their heart

Do you think workers will work for nothing out the goodness of their own hearts?
Fool.

Do you even read the English language? Walker is claiming employers will pay HIGHER wages if we remove the minimum wage

Defend it

He's right. If you had bothered to take an Econ course you would understand that. Of course they don't offer Econ 101 in 4th grade, your last grade completed, so I can't blame you completely.

Splain it to us Rabbi
What economic force causes wages to go up if you drop minimum wage?

Market efficiency benefits everyone, skewed markets harm everyone, and only government can skew markets because only government can use force to make people chose an option not in their interest. I'd explain it in more detail, but let's be honest, you don't give a shit about how economics actually work.

OK, professor. Explain how monopolies form.