Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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?
I=Oh yeah? Just who do you think was responsible for 9/11?? Answer that!That's like not even relevant.Governments pass laws.If you don't like the service Walmart is offering, don't shop there.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.
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
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.
Maybe it would be better to have a minimum wage and get rid of all the other stuff so companies aren't getting benefits from the govt.
Even with a minimum wage, an employer can decide to not employ someone because they're not worth it, they can just make do with what they have.
Exactly. But I wonder why some people think that's preferable to a low wage.
Preferable? In most cases neither is preferable. I'm not in favor of a large minimum wage, but one that at least gives workers a chance.
But only the workers who are able to convince an employer they're worth it, right? Those who can't lose their 'chance'.
I'm not sure what you understood by chance, but I meant that they'd be able to actually live. ie, buy food, have accommodation and such essentials.
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.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.
If you'd like to start a new thread on the scary liberal bogeymen of "taxpayer subsidies", feel free.
He's being under attack for saying stuff that is completely true.
“I want jobs that pay two or three times the minimum wage,” Walker said, adding, “The way you do that is not by (setting) an arbitrary amount by the state.”
Does that mean the first-term Republican governor opposes a minimum wage on principle?
During Tuesday's meeting with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel'sEditorial Board, Walker was asked to clarify his position. He didn't hesitate.
“I'm not going to repeal it,” Walker said. “But I don't think it serves a purpose because we're debating then about what the lowest levels are at. I want people to make, like I said the other night, two or three times that.”
Walker said he wants to help people get the skills they need to find careers that pay many times the current minimum wage, which is $7.25 an hour.
“The jobs I focus on, the programs we put in place, the training we put in place is not for people to get minimum wage jobs,” he said.
Liberal groups and labor organizations immediately went on the attack, tearing into the governor for saying he doesn’t think the minimum wage “serves a purpose.”
First out of the box was American Bridge — a Democratic Super PAC — which had video of the quote posted before the Editorial Board had concluded.
Then Walker came under fire from his campaign foe, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mary Burke. She has said she wants to raise the minimum wage in three stages to $10.10 an hour.
“Well, I disagree with it entirely,” Burke told Journal Sentinel reporter Bill Glauber in response to Walker’s comment earlier in the day. “It's important that people who are working fulltime are able to support themselves without government assistance. That's just sort of common sense.”
She said that reducing the number of people on the public dole would reduce the state budget and improve the economy, adding that many business owners she knows supporting increasing the minimum wage.
“I want to make sure people are able to have the pride of having a full-time job and supporting themselves,” Burke said.
A number of liberal websites — such as Talking Points Memo, Huffington Post and Think Progress — jumped on Walker’s comment.
Finally, a top labor official tried to take the governor to task.
“For nearly a century, American workers have relied on minimum wage protections,” said Stephanie Bloomingdale, secretary-treasurer of the Wisconsin State AFL-CIO. “Now is not the time to take away these important laws,” she continued. “Now is the time to raise the minimum wage so that people who get up and go to work every day can have a decent standard of living.”
This is the second remark from the debate for which Walker has come under strong criticism.
In the first, the governor said, “We don’t have a jobs problem in this state. We have a work problem.”
Burke and other Democrats ripped the statement, suggesting he is ignoring the fact that Wisconsin trails other states in job growth.
Walker countered in a 30-second ad earlier this week.
He has said the statement at the debate concerned the so-called “skills gap,” the notion that good jobs in the state aren’t being filled because of a lack of trained workers.
“Mary Burke is distorting my comments on jobs,” Walker said in the commercial. “It’s no wonder. The tax-and-spend policies she supports drove out good-paying manufacturing jobs in Wisconsin.”
The two candidates for the state’s top office will square off again Friday, sparking a second round of debate — and TV ads — over what is meant and said.
Link:
Scott Walker says he doesn t believe minimum wage serves a purpose - JSOnline
Does the min. wage serve a purpose or should companies be allowed to pay what the market dictates?
You're trying to have a reasonable discussion with people whose sole response is "big corps own everything"??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?
Repeating your assertion and not addressing any of my points isn't a response. Whether you view businesses as responsible for government social policy or not, and I don't, how is making low end workers unemployable good for them? How is it good for anyone? Is't it better for them to partially support themselves then to not be able to support themselves at all?
And at WalMart, a lot of them move on to better paying jobs. Only a tiny fraction of workers earn minimum wage.
Republicans fought Democrats to end slavery, dumbshit.He's being under attack for saying stuff that is completely true.
“I want jobs that pay two or three times the minimum wage,” Walker said, adding, “The way you do that is not by (setting) an arbitrary amount by the state.”
Does that mean the first-term Republican governor opposes a minimum wage on principle?
During Tuesday's meeting with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel'sEditorial Board, Walker was asked to clarify his position. He didn't hesitate.
“I'm not going to repeal it,” Walker said. “But I don't think it serves a purpose because we're debating then about what the lowest levels are at. I want people to make, like I said the other night, two or three times that.”
Walker said he wants to help people get the skills they need to find careers that pay many times the current minimum wage, which is $7.25 an hour.
“The jobs I focus on, the programs we put in place, the training we put in place is not for people to get minimum wage jobs,” he said.
Liberal groups and labor organizations immediately went on the attack, tearing into the governor for saying he doesn’t think the minimum wage “serves a purpose.”
First out of the box was American Bridge — a Democratic Super PAC — which had video of the quote posted before the Editorial Board had concluded.
Then Walker came under fire from his campaign foe, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mary Burke. She has said she wants to raise the minimum wage in three stages to $10.10 an hour.
“Well, I disagree with it entirely,” Burke told Journal Sentinel reporter Bill Glauber in response to Walker’s comment earlier in the day. “It's important that people who are working fulltime are able to support themselves without government assistance. That's just sort of common sense.”
She said that reducing the number of people on the public dole would reduce the state budget and improve the economy, adding that many business owners she knows supporting increasing the minimum wage.
“I want to make sure people are able to have the pride of having a full-time job and supporting themselves,” Burke said.
A number of liberal websites — such as Talking Points Memo, Huffington Post and Think Progress — jumped on Walker’s comment.
Finally, a top labor official tried to take the governor to task.
“For nearly a century, American workers have relied on minimum wage protections,” said Stephanie Bloomingdale, secretary-treasurer of the Wisconsin State AFL-CIO. “Now is not the time to take away these important laws,” she continued. “Now is the time to raise the minimum wage so that people who get up and go to work every day can have a decent standard of living.”
This is the second remark from the debate for which Walker has come under strong criticism.
In the first, the governor said, “We don’t have a jobs problem in this state. We have a work problem.”
Burke and other Democrats ripped the statement, suggesting he is ignoring the fact that Wisconsin trails other states in job growth.
Walker countered in a 30-second ad earlier this week.
He has said the statement at the debate concerned the so-called “skills gap,” the notion that good jobs in the state aren’t being filled because of a lack of trained workers.
“Mary Burke is distorting my comments on jobs,” Walker said in the commercial. “It’s no wonder. The tax-and-spend policies she supports drove out good-paying manufacturing jobs in Wisconsin.”
The two candidates for the state’s top office will square off again Friday, sparking a second round of debate — and TV ads — over what is meant and said.
Link:
Scott Walker says he doesn t believe minimum wage serves a purpose - JSOnline
Does the min. wage serve a purpose or should companies be allowed to pay what the market dictates?
Following this train of logic slavery would be the ideal solution for Republicans.
He's being under attack for saying stuff that is completely true.
“I want jobs that pay two or three times the minimum wage,” Walker said, adding, “The way you do that is not by (setting) an arbitrary amount by the state.”
Does that mean the first-term Republican governor opposes a minimum wage on principle?
During Tuesday's meeting with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel'sEditorial Board, Walker was asked to clarify his position. He didn't hesitate.
“I'm not going to repeal it,” Walker said. “But I don't think it serves a purpose because we're debating then about what the lowest levels are at. I want people to make, like I said the other night, two or three times that.”
Walker said he wants to help people get the skills they need to find careers that pay many times the current minimum wage, which is $7.25 an hour.
“The jobs I focus on, the programs we put in place, the training we put in place is not for people to get minimum wage jobs,” he said.
Liberal groups and labor organizations immediately went on the attack, tearing into the governor for saying he doesn’t think the minimum wage “serves a purpose.”
First out of the box was American Bridge — a Democratic Super PAC — which had video of the quote posted before the Editorial Board had concluded.
Then Walker came under fire from his campaign foe, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mary Burke. She has said she wants to raise the minimum wage in three stages to $10.10 an hour.
“Well, I disagree with it entirely,” Burke told Journal Sentinel reporter Bill Glauber in response to Walker’s comment earlier in the day. “It's important that people who are working fulltime are able to support themselves without government assistance. That's just sort of common sense.”
She said that reducing the number of people on the public dole would reduce the state budget and improve the economy, adding that many business owners she knows supporting increasing the minimum wage.
“I want to make sure people are able to have the pride of having a full-time job and supporting themselves,” Burke said.
A number of liberal websites — such as Talking Points Memo, Huffington Post and Think Progress — jumped on Walker’s comment.
Finally, a top labor official tried to take the governor to task.
“For nearly a century, American workers have relied on minimum wage protections,” said Stephanie Bloomingdale, secretary-treasurer of the Wisconsin State AFL-CIO. “Now is not the time to take away these important laws,” she continued. “Now is the time to raise the minimum wage so that people who get up and go to work every day can have a decent standard of living.”
This is the second remark from the debate for which Walker has come under strong criticism.
In the first, the governor said, “We don’t have a jobs problem in this state. We have a work problem.”
Burke and other Democrats ripped the statement, suggesting he is ignoring the fact that Wisconsin trails other states in job growth.
Walker countered in a 30-second ad earlier this week.
He has said the statement at the debate concerned the so-called “skills gap,” the notion that good jobs in the state aren’t being filled because of a lack of trained workers.
“Mary Burke is distorting my comments on jobs,” Walker said in the commercial. “It’s no wonder. The tax-and-spend policies she supports drove out good-paying manufacturing jobs in Wisconsin.”
The two candidates for the state’s top office will square off again Friday, sparking a second round of debate — and TV ads — over what is meant and said.
Link:
Scott Walker says he doesn t believe minimum wage serves a purpose - JSOnline
Does the min. wage serve a purpose or should companies be allowed to pay what the market dictates?
They don't pay more because they don't need better workers, they dumb down the job for the ones they hire now. If you force businesses to pay more, we will hire better workers because we can get better workers for more money. Wal mart will reduce hiring, automate and raise expectations for the better workers. They are not going to pay the low skill workers more either way.
Poor little liberal. He can't stand losing so resoundingly the debate about Minimum Wage. So all he can do is try again and again to chage the subject and get conservatives to quit talking about it.Walmart is reaping the profits from taxpayer subsidized employees. Why does Walmart deserve to have it's payroll subsidized by taxpayers?
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.
You've never taken an economics class, have you?[
Republicans fought Democrats to end slavery, dumbshit.He's being under attack for saying stuff that is completely true.
“I want jobs that pay two or three times the minimum wage,” Walker said, adding, “The way you do that is not by (setting) an arbitrary amount by the state.”
Does that mean the first-term Republican governor opposes a minimum wage on principle?
During Tuesday's meeting with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel'sEditorial Board, Walker was asked to clarify his position. He didn't hesitate.
“I'm not going to repeal it,” Walker said. “But I don't think it serves a purpose because we're debating then about what the lowest levels are at. I want people to make, like I said the other night, two or three times that.”
Walker said he wants to help people get the skills they need to find careers that pay many times the current minimum wage, which is $7.25 an hour.
“The jobs I focus on, the programs we put in place, the training we put in place is not for people to get minimum wage jobs,” he said.
Liberal groups and labor organizations immediately went on the attack, tearing into the governor for saying he doesn’t think the minimum wage “serves a purpose.”
First out of the box was American Bridge — a Democratic Super PAC — which had video of the quote posted before the Editorial Board had concluded.
Then Walker came under fire from his campaign foe, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mary Burke. She has said she wants to raise the minimum wage in three stages to $10.10 an hour.
“Well, I disagree with it entirely,” Burke told Journal Sentinel reporter Bill Glauber in response to Walker’s comment earlier in the day. “It's important that people who are working fulltime are able to support themselves without government assistance. That's just sort of common sense.”
She said that reducing the number of people on the public dole would reduce the state budget and improve the economy, adding that many business owners she knows supporting increasing the minimum wage.
“I want to make sure people are able to have the pride of having a full-time job and supporting themselves,” Burke said.
A number of liberal websites — such as Talking Points Memo, Huffington Post and Think Progress — jumped on Walker’s comment.
Finally, a top labor official tried to take the governor to task.
“For nearly a century, American workers have relied on minimum wage protections,” said Stephanie Bloomingdale, secretary-treasurer of the Wisconsin State AFL-CIO. “Now is not the time to take away these important laws,” she continued. “Now is the time to raise the minimum wage so that people who get up and go to work every day can have a decent standard of living.”
This is the second remark from the debate for which Walker has come under strong criticism.
In the first, the governor said, “We don’t have a jobs problem in this state. We have a work problem.”
Burke and other Democrats ripped the statement, suggesting he is ignoring the fact that Wisconsin trails other states in job growth.
Walker countered in a 30-second ad earlier this week.
He has said the statement at the debate concerned the so-called “skills gap,” the notion that good jobs in the state aren’t being filled because of a lack of trained workers.
“Mary Burke is distorting my comments on jobs,” Walker said in the commercial. “It’s no wonder. The tax-and-spend policies she supports drove out good-paying manufacturing jobs in Wisconsin.”
The two candidates for the state’s top office will square off again Friday, sparking a second round of debate — and TV ads — over what is meant and said.
Link:
Scott Walker says he doesn t believe minimum wage serves a purpose - JSOnline
Does the min. wage serve a purpose or should companies be allowed to pay what the market dictates?
Following this train of logic slavery would be the ideal solution for Republicans.
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?
Repeating your assertion and not addressing any of my points isn't a response. Whether you view businesses as responsible for government social policy or not, and I don't, how is making low end workers unemployable good for them? How is it good for anyone? Is't it better for them to partially support themselves then to not be able to support themselves at all?
And at WalMart, a lot of them move on to better paying jobs. Only a tiny fraction of workers earn minimum wage.
You're trying to have a reasonable discussion with people whose sole response is "big corps own everything"??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?
Repeating your assertion and not addressing any of my points isn't a response. Whether you view businesses as responsible for government social policy or not, and I don't, how is making low end workers unemployable good for them? How is it good for anyone? Is't it better for them to partially support themselves then to not be able to support themselves at all?
And at WalMart, a lot of them move on to better paying jobs. Only a tiny fraction of workers earn minimum wage.
Republicans fought Democrats to end slavery, dumbshit.He's being under attack for saying stuff that is completely true.
“I want jobs that pay two or three times the minimum wage,” Walker said, adding, “The way you do that is not by (setting) an arbitrary amount by the state.”
Does that mean the first-term Republican governor opposes a minimum wage on principle?
During Tuesday's meeting with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel'sEditorial Board, Walker was asked to clarify his position. He didn't hesitate.
“I'm not going to repeal it,” Walker said. “But I don't think it serves a purpose because we're debating then about what the lowest levels are at. I want people to make, like I said the other night, two or three times that.”
Walker said he wants to help people get the skills they need to find careers that pay many times the current minimum wage, which is $7.25 an hour.
“The jobs I focus on, the programs we put in place, the training we put in place is not for people to get minimum wage jobs,” he said.
Liberal groups and labor organizations immediately went on the attack, tearing into the governor for saying he doesn’t think the minimum wage “serves a purpose.”
First out of the box was American Bridge — a Democratic Super PAC — which had video of the quote posted before the Editorial Board had concluded.
Then Walker came under fire from his campaign foe, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mary Burke. She has said she wants to raise the minimum wage in three stages to $10.10 an hour.
“Well, I disagree with it entirely,” Burke told Journal Sentinel reporter Bill Glauber in response to Walker’s comment earlier in the day. “It's important that people who are working fulltime are able to support themselves without government assistance. That's just sort of common sense.”
She said that reducing the number of people on the public dole would reduce the state budget and improve the economy, adding that many business owners she knows supporting increasing the minimum wage.
“I want to make sure people are able to have the pride of having a full-time job and supporting themselves,” Burke said.
A number of liberal websites — such as Talking Points Memo, Huffington Post and Think Progress — jumped on Walker’s comment.
Finally, a top labor official tried to take the governor to task.
“For nearly a century, American workers have relied on minimum wage protections,” said Stephanie Bloomingdale, secretary-treasurer of the Wisconsin State AFL-CIO. “Now is not the time to take away these important laws,” she continued. “Now is the time to raise the minimum wage so that people who get up and go to work every day can have a decent standard of living.”
This is the second remark from the debate for which Walker has come under strong criticism.
In the first, the governor said, “We don’t have a jobs problem in this state. We have a work problem.”
Burke and other Democrats ripped the statement, suggesting he is ignoring the fact that Wisconsin trails other states in job growth.
Walker countered in a 30-second ad earlier this week.
He has said the statement at the debate concerned the so-called “skills gap,” the notion that good jobs in the state aren’t being filled because of a lack of trained workers.
“Mary Burke is distorting my comments on jobs,” Walker said in the commercial. “It’s no wonder. The tax-and-spend policies she supports drove out good-paying manufacturing jobs in Wisconsin.”
The two candidates for the state’s top office will square off again Friday, sparking a second round of debate — and TV ads — over what is meant and said.
Link:
Scott Walker says he doesn t believe minimum wage serves a purpose - JSOnline
Does the min. wage serve a purpose or should companies be allowed to pay what the market dictates?
Following this train of logic slavery would be the ideal solution for Republicans.
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.
Poor little liberal. He can't stand losing so resoundingly the debate about Minimum Wage. So all he can do is try again and again to chage the subject and get conservatives to quit talking about it.Walmart is reaping the profits from taxpayer subsidized employees. Why does Walmart deserve to have it's payroll subsidized by taxpayers?
But he doesn't dare start a new thread on his scary bogeyman of "taxpayer subsidized wages", or whatever his new diversionary subject is, becuse he knows no one is interested in addressing his vaporings. So he keeps trying and trying to hijack this thread instead.
Back to the subject:
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.
The vast majority of MW workers are not heads of households. They are living in mom and dad's house or the equivalent.They don't pay more because they don't need better workers, they dumb down the job for the ones they hire now. If you force businesses to pay more, we will hire better workers because we can get better workers for more money. Wal mart will reduce hiring, automate and raise expectations for the better workers. They are not going to pay the low skill workers more either way.
Sorry mate, but what you're describing boils down to poor people management. You're talking about people being "worth" only $5/hr, which is equivalent of saying that they are only worth their own deaths. You can't live off $5/hr. If there is no good reason to hire someone who is that worthless. For any job. Period. Especially when you're saying that if the minimum wage were increased you would hire "better" people for the same jobs.
Good recruitment and people management is about filling every position, from top to bottom, with people who are highly capable of delivering good quality work. There are certain qualifications that make some people better candidates than others for specific positions. But ultimately, every single person in your employ should be someone who can be developed and built into a high quality employee. High quality employees perform better, contribute to improved productivity, and as long as they were managed effectively reduce turnover costs. If you're settling for low quality employees just because you want to get away with as cheap of labor as possible, then you are settling for a low quality business product. Low quality employees should not be hired in the first place. If they do make it through your recruitment screening, they should be developed into better employees. If they cannot be developed you need to start thinking about replacing the employee. And if you regularly end up with such people then you should be thinking about replacing the supervisor and the recruiter as well.
Sorry mate, but what you're describing boils down to poor people management.
StrawmanYou're talking about people being "worth" only $5/hr, which is equivalent of saying that they are only worth their own deaths.
ultimately, every single person in your employ should be someone who can be developed and built into a high quality employee
