Scott Walker: "Min. wage serves no purpose"

[kaz]

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

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.

There are two types of monopolies

1- Coercive - allowed or mandate by governmental law
2- non-coercive - created by the marketplace , ie, Standard Oil of New Jersey

Non-coercive monopolies aren't true monopolies though, there are competitors and customers have choices. It's just that one is offering the best choice and most of them pick that. They are also unsustainable in the long run.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Still crickets from the right when it comes to answering this question.

TRANSLATION: When I tried to change the subject and hijack the thread, people keep ignoring me!

 

[Little-Acorn]

Scott Walker: "Min. wage serves no purpose"


Walker is wrong.

Minimum Wage certainly does serve a purpose. Three, actually.

1.) It transfers money from workers whose work pays for the wage they are receiving, to workers whose work does not pay for the wage they are receiving. In other words, it implements one of the most important facets of socialism.

2.) It eliminates low-wage jobs (that is, jobs that bring in less revenue than the worker is paid) from the marketplace, thus making it much more difficult for beginners to get a start and build up their experience. This expands welfare roles, makes families poorer, and makes more people dependent on government coercion to live.

3.) It boosts wages for ALL workers in unions whose wage scales are based on the minimum wage. When the Min Wage goes up, ALL of them get raises. This makes #2 above, even more extensive.

Minimum Wage does serve a purpose... and it is uniformly bad for the country.

 

[kaz]

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

As with everything, if you let it go unchecked, it will explode. And with minimum wage, it's the same.

All people are saying is, the basic wage that someone can earn is at a level which doesn't kill them. If an employer doesn't want to hire someone for that money, then they don't have to. Supply and demand still stands/

First of all, that makes no sense. Supply and demand is marketplace. To say supply and demand work when government uses force to skew the market is ridiculous.

The employer to deal with the market skew on wages reduces hiring, automates and raises the demands of the job.

It's the employee you particularly screw. Ones worth the minimum wage would make minimum wage anyway. The ones who aren't worth it can't get jobs and when they do get fired quickly.

That being "supply and demand" still is as stupid as it sounds.

 

[kaz]

So by your logic, if we can find a few cases of welfare fraud, we can end welfare.

LOL! That is ADORABLE!

I am a principled advocate for ending welfare for all but those in the most dire of need. Which would cut welfare spending by 98%.

BUT... toward helping you figure this out, I'll readily enter into a wager with you:

If an objective study of welfare spending was initiated and ONLY A FEW INSTANCES OF WELFARE FRAUD WERE FOUND.... I would immediately SWITCH my advocacy to demand that welfare spending by increased by an order of magnitude... and if NOT, that welfare spending be reduced to levels which serve ONLY those who present an OBJECTIVELY RECOGNIZED NEED: WHICH WOULD MEAN THAT THE INDIVIDUALS AT ISSUE ARE OTHERWISE INCAPABLE OF SURVIVING WITHOUT IT!

Now... you should know that I've offered that bet for well over a decade and NOT ONE person has ever accepted those terms. And for obvious reasons.

Why would I take that wager? I'm on the same side as you are.

 

[kaz]

Liberals understand economics like dolphins understand forest fires.

Ironic!

Yes, of course, true economics leads to the conclusion that socialism is the answer to every problem. You've never taken an economics class, have you?

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

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

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.

Governments pass laws.
That's the only way.
Aren't you humiliated enough already?

Nope. Wrong. Corporations break the laws, cheat their customers for big profits, and then pay their Congressmen so they can get away with it.


Feds Sue AT&T for Throttling Customers
Feds Sue AT T for Throttling Customers - The Daily Beast


The result of banking DEregulation:

Bank of America to Pay $16.65 Billion in Historic Justice Department Settlement for Financial Fraud Leading up to and During the Financial Crisis
Bank of America to Pay 16.65 Billion in Historic Justice Department Settlement for Financial Fraud Leading up to and During the Financial Crisis OPA Department of Justice

That's like not even relevant.
Next.

You have absolutely nothing to say, and you just said nothing again.

Why does Congress have an 14% approval rating? Because (except for dumbshits like you) people know big money is being represented, not them.

 

[Truman123]

In Walker's defense, he's rich and out of touch.

 

[Little-Acorn]

What is a person worth?

How can you put a "worth" on a person?

Why do liberals always come up with such weird statements and questions? What kind of twisted mindset must they have, to assume a person has a certain "worth" and no more? These liberals are sick.

BTW, what is a person's labor worth?

(A totally different, and reasonable, question)

 

[frigidweirdo]

First of all, that makes no sense. Supply and demand is marketplace. To say supply and demand work when government uses force to skew the market is ridiculous.

The employer to deal with the market skew on wages reduces hiring, automates and raises the demands of the job.

It's the employee you particularly screw. Ones worth the minimum wage would make minimum wage anyway. The ones who aren't worth it can't get jobs and when they do get fired quickly.

That being "supply and demand" still is as stupid as it sounds.

It's like saying supply and demand and preventing monopolies, or limiting how banks can operate, or many of the laws and regulations that limit what businesses can do. Why?

Because pure supply and demand isn't actually that great. Without regulation it leads to problems. What is required is as much supply and demand as possible for it to work as effectively as possible, but with the necessary regulation so that it doesn't mess everything up all the time.

So... those who can't get jobs don't get jobs. Then what's the problem?

 

[kaz]

Why does Congress have an 14% approval rating? Because (except for dumbshits like you) people know big money is being represented, not them.

So big money buys government, and you want more government. Liar, you don't believe that. If you did, you would be a small government libertarian instead of a socialist. Ironically I do believe what you said, you're completely right, money does buy government. Which is why I am a small government libertarian.

Money seeks power. The more successful you are in growing government, the more you motivate those with money to control it. And congress runs on money, they are for sale. Read your own posts on money buying government, only this time believe what you said. And you will stop being a Democrat.

 

[frigidweirdo]

What is a person worth?

How can you put a "worth" on a person?

Why do liberals always come up with such weird statements and questions? What kind of twisted mindset must they have, to assume a person has a certain "worth" and no more? These liberals are sick.

BTW, what is a person's labor worth?

(A totally different, and reasonable, question)

How can you put a worth on a person? Isn't this exactly what happens every single day for millions and billions of people?

You say a person's labor is worth something. However if you have two people doing the same job and same labor in two parts of the world they'll get paid massively different salaries. Is it really their labor that is worth something?

Surely it's a person's ability to earn money for the company that is their worth.

 

[Derideo_Te]

When I tried to change the subject and hijack the thread

Ironic!

This thread is about minimum wage and taxpayer subsidized employees are earning minimum wages. You cannot refute that hard fact. You also cannot answer the question as to why corporations deserve to have their payrolls subsidized by taxpayers because you are are afraid of the answer.

 

[kaz]

First of all, that makes no sense. Supply and demand is marketplace. To say supply and demand work when government uses force to skew the market is ridiculous.

The employer to deal with the market skew on wages reduces hiring, automates and raises the demands of the job.

It's the employee you particularly screw. Ones worth the minimum wage would make minimum wage anyway. The ones who aren't worth it can't get jobs and when they do get fired quickly.

That being "supply and demand" still is as stupid as it sounds.

It's like saying supply and demand and preventing monopolies, or limiting how banks can operate, or many of the laws and regulations that limit what businesses can do. Why?

Can you re-read this and translate it from gibberish into English? Thanks!

Because pure supply and demand isn't actually that great. Without regulation it leads to problems. What is required is as much supply and demand as possible for it to work as effectively as possible, but with the necessary regulation so that it doesn't mess everything up all the time.

So... those who can't get jobs don't get jobs. Then what's the problem?

Yes, the you're not a socialist so you're an anarchist bit. LOL, that is funny, I never get tired of that one.

We need civil and criminal courts to redress wrongs. We do not need politicians and bureaucrats telling companies that have done nothing wrong what to do.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Yes, of course, true economics leads to the conclusion that socialism is the answer to every problem. You've never taken an economics class, have you?

That you have to resort to ad hom attacks is why were you placed on ignore the first time around. I have no problem sending you to Cyberia permanently if you cannot stick to the topic.

 

[kaz]

When I tried to change the subject and hijack the thread

Ironic!

This thread is about minimum wage and taxpayer subsidized employees are earning minimum wages. You cannot refute that hard fact. You also cannot answer the question as to why corporations deserve to have their payrolls subsidized by taxpayers because you are are afraid of the answer.

Politicians make the decisions on redistribution of money. Walmart pays market wages. That Walmart needs to pay wages based on money government chose to take from someone and give to someone else or it's "corporate welfare" is idiotic.

Corporate welfare is when government takes money earned from someone else and gives it to the corporation, which isn't happening when Walmart pays market wages. Earmarks are an example of actual corporate welfare. So are a lot of laws implemented by both parties to use force to restrict and regulate competition.

Now what if you answer my question. How exactly if you raise wages to $10 an hour are people only worth $7.25 going to get any job? Why would Walmart not fire them and hire better workers since you are forcing them to pay more?

 

[Little-Acorn]

When I tried to change the subject and hijack the thread

Ironic!

This thread is about minimum wage and taxpayer subsidized employees are earning minimum wages. You cannot refute that hard fact. You also cannot answer the question as to why corporations deserve to have their payrolls subsidized by taxpayers because you are are afraid of the answer.

The thread has never been about corps having their payrolls subsidized by taxpayers. Until you tried to change the subject to that. A typical reaction of somebody who cannot defend the Minimum Wage (the actual subject) on its "merits", and so tries to divert from it.

If you'd like to start a new thread on the scary liberal bogeymen of "taxpayer subsidies", feel free.

 

[Derideo_Te]

When I tried to change the subject and hijack the thread

Ironic!

This thread is about minimum wage and taxpayer subsidized employees are earning minimum wages. You cannot refute that hard fact. You also cannot answer the question as to why corporations deserve to have their payrolls subsidized by taxpayers because you are are afraid of the answer.

Politicians make the decisions on redistribution of money. Walmart pays market wages. That Walmart needs to pay wages based on money government chose to take from someone and give to someone else or it's "corporate welfare" is idiotic.

Corporate welfare is when government takes money earned from someone else and gives it to the corporation, which isn't happening when Walmart pays market wages. Earmarks are an example of actual corporate welfare. So are a lot of laws implemented by both parties to use force to restrict and regulate competition.

Now what if you answer my question. How exactly if you raise wages to $10 an hour are people only worth $7.25 going to get any job? Why would Walmart not fire them and hire better workers since you are forcing them to pay more?

Walmart is reaping the profits from taxpayer subsidized employees. Why does Walmart deserve to have it's payroll subsidized by taxpayers?

 

[kaz]

Yes, of course, true economics leads to the conclusion that socialism is the answer to every problem. You've never taken an economics class, have you?

That you have to resort to ad hom attacks is why were you placed on ignore the first time around. I have no problem sending you to Cyberia permanently if you cannot stick to the topic.

I was on ignore? Actually, you started the ad hom in this one. I referred to "liberals" not knowing economics and not even in a post to you. You responded and referred to me.

 

[Little-Acorn]

What is a person worth?

How can you put a "worth" on a person?

Why do liberals always come up with such weird statements and questions? What kind of twisted mindset must they have, to assume a person has a certain "worth" and no more? These liberals are sick.

BTW, what is a person's labor worth?

(A totally different, and reasonable, question)

How can you put a worth on a person? Isn't this exactly what happens every single day for millions and billions of people?

Nope.

People put a "worth" on others' labor. Or on their contribution to some project or quest.

Liberals who lose the debate, then try to change the argument and pretend the winner had said "Put a worth on a person", so they can bash him for something he didn't say.

Typical loser tactic. But that doesn't keep the liberals from being losers.