Scott Walker: "Min. wage serves no purpose"

[frigidweirdo]

What do you mean "get rid of all the other stuff"? What other stuff?


Right. But that chance only exists for those who can keep their job under the higher wages requirements. You seemed to acknowledge that that wouldn't always be the case, so I'm wondering where that leaves people who lose out. They go from low-wage to no-wage, and lose any chance of supporting themselves.

Stuff like food stamps and the like. I think the US is the only countries where the govt actually props up workers who actually work. In every other country someone who works either doesn't need propping up by the govt or the govt doesn't give anything at all. Walmart et al would then have to pay a higher wage.

Firstly, would there be a higher wage requirements? That depends on what minimum wage actually is. I wouldn't set it too high by any means.
But people losing their jobs is people losing their jobs, it's the way it goes.

You sound like you actually give a damn about low paid workers. I'm not convinced.

 

[SwimExpert]

WM has been losing market share to the dollar stores, precisely because of price.
Your argument is simply wrong.

Actually, Walmart has been primarily losing customers to Amazon and other competitors due to poor product quality, poor customer service, and bad publicity regarding employee pay.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Sorry mate, but what you're describing boils down to poor people management.

Gotcha, people are like wrenches and screwdrives, they are all the same. They are just tools, it's the quality of the person using the tool who matters. That's how things are in your work? There are managers and the rest of you are interchangable tools who's successes and failures are on their managers, not them? Seriously?

You're talking about people being "worth" only $5/hr, which is equivalent of saying that they are only worth their own deaths.

Strawman

ultimately, every single person in your employ should be someone who can be developed and built into a high quality employee

OK, and what are you going to do with the rest of them?

BTW, as an actual business owner with real employees, quality is completely tied to the job you need done. Walmart creates nothing, they re-sell prepackaged goods. They offer no services, they offer lower price which is enabled by volume and low overhead. "Quality" for them is the ability to hire people with virtually no skills and give them a chance.

In your system, what exactly are you going to do with all the people who aren't the high performing employees you believe are the only ones who should be able to get jobs?

Who are you replying to? I didn't say any of that stuff, you've taken the post quote from one place and the quotes from somewhere else.

 

[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.

You replied to my post accusing me of never having taken an economics class. That is an ad hom attack.

You've never taken an economics class, have you?[

The fact that you cannot even comprehend when you making an attack says volumes.

Um...that isn't what I said. I said you started the ad hominem, I didn't say that wasn't ad hominem. It's frankly pretty weak ad hominem as well, both our posts were. You really want to keep discussing that?

 

[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?

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.

Thank you for tacitly admitting that you cannot justify taxpayer's subsidizing Walmart's payroll. My point is made. Have a nice day.

Ironic you're chastising for not answering your question even though I did while you're ignoring my question completely.

Welfare is social policy, Walmart has nothing to do with setting welfare rates or qualifications. That they need to implement social policy they have no say in is preposterous. They do have to pay market wages or they will have no employees, that is what they are responsible for. That is answering your question.

Now what about mine? "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?"

 

[kaz]

Some companies will pay what someone's worth, others won't, they'll try and pay as little as possible.

Ding, ding, ding! Companies want to pay as little as possible, employees want to earn as much as possible. When they agree on a wage, a deal is done!

I mean no duh, ironic you claim not to be a socialist and you think that's an insight.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I reiterate what I posted about a month ago. I read this guy's study where he showed that it would be cheaper for the USG to shut down all welfare programs and just send every adult US citizen a check for $30K on Jan 2 of every year.

Then do away with the minimum wage law and those who want to work and earn more will, and those that don't, don't have to.

Bet McDonalds would have to bump up their pay then eh?

 

[SwimExpert]

Some people can only do work that is worth 5/hr. That is simply the truth.

No, that's a cop out. Do you even here how extreme a thing you are saying? There is no reason a person, short of significant disability, is capable of nothing more than that.

Even still, even if we indulge your premise for a moment......why the hell would you hire such a person? There is no excuse for making such a hiring.

 

[kaz]

Sorry mate, but what you're describing boils down to poor people management.

Gotcha, people are like wrenches and screwdrives, they are all the same. They are just tools, it's the quality of the person using the tool who matters. That's how things are in your work? There are managers and the rest of you are interchangable tools who's successes and failures are on their managers, not them? Seriously?

You're talking about people being "worth" only $5/hr, which is equivalent of saying that they are only worth their own deaths.

Strawman

ultimately, every single person in your employ should be someone who can be developed and built into a high quality employee

OK, and what are you going to do with the rest of them?

BTW, as an actual business owner with real employees, quality is completely tied to the job you need done. Walmart creates nothing, they re-sell prepackaged goods. They offer no services, they offer lower price which is enabled by volume and low overhead. "Quality" for them is the ability to hire people with virtually no skills and give them a chance.

In your system, what exactly are you going to do with all the people who aren't the high performing employees you believe are the only ones who should be able to get jobs?

Who are you replying to? I didn't say any of that stuff, you've taken the post quote from one place and the quotes from somewhere else.

My apologies, you're correct, it was Swim Expert. It wasn't intentional, I mixed up the quoting. I'll fix my quote and again, I apologize.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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

So... by 'out of touch' you mean to say that policy which expands economic production, lifting all boats common to that economy, represents a state of mind which is disconnected from... what and whom?

Perhaps you're speaking of you and you're anti-American perspective?

I think if you'll just agree to that and I see no reason why ya would, given the incontrovertible nature of such, that we can both agree on your would-be point.

Please be sure to keep me posted on your feelings.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Some people can only do work that is worth 5/hr. That is simply the truth.

No, that's a cop out. Do you even here how extreme a thing you are saying? There is no reason a person, short of significant disability, is capable of nothing more than that.

Even still, even if we indulge your premise for a moment......why the hell would you hire such a person? There is no excuse for making such a hiring.

First, I want him to explain how he came to the conclusion that certain work is worth $5/Hr. As of yet, no one has explained that.

If I have a car and I'm wanting to sell it, and you come to me and offer to buy it, I don't let you just tell me what my car is worth without having any input on my own. Why would anyone's labor be any different?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Some people can only do work that is worth 5/hr. That is simply the truth.

No, that's a cop out. Do you even here how extreme a thing you are saying? There is no reason a person, short of significant disability, is capable of nothing more than that.

ROFLMNAO! Nonsense... there are any number of excellent reasons.
A person could be demonstrating that they're mindset is the product of socialism, which would mean that they're addled by drug or alcohol addiction, a profound misunderstanding of the natural world around them, inducing in them a sense of entitlement, thus producing something which falls within the scope of a simple but belligerent attitude all the way up to and including their being a chronic malcontent. And so on and so forth...

Even still, even if we indulge your premise for a moment......why the hell would you hire such a person?

Why indeed? Usually such results due to a lack of available options.

There is no excuse for making such a hiring.

No... the absence of options is a perfect reason. Sometimes a warm body is needed, despite such being closer to counter productive than not.

The appropriate wage for such however, is legitimately closer to zero, which I am sure you can see that such is well below the federal requirement, which is the good Rabbi's point.

 

[dblack]

What do you mean "get rid of all the other stuff"? What other stuff?

Stuff like food stamps and the like. I think the US is the only countries where the govt actually props up workers who actually work. In every other country someone who works either doesn't need propping up by the govt or the govt doesn't give anything at all. Walmart et al would then have to pay a higher wage.

Yeah, welfare for people with jobs doesn't make much sense. Call me paranoid, but I see a lot of ulterior motives in the structure of our welfare state. Many of the policies seemed designed to maintain (rather than eliminate) a dependent (and thus, compliant) underclass and supplement low-cost labor for industry.

Right. But that chance only exists for those who can keep their job under the higher wages requirements. You seemed to acknowledge that that wouldn't always be the case, so I'm wondering where that leaves people who lose out. They go from low-wage to no-wage, and lose any chance of supporting themselves.

Firstly, would there be a higher wage requirements? That depends on what minimum wage actually is. I wouldn't set it too high by any means.
But people losing their jobs is people losing their jobs, it's the way it goes.

Well, a minimum wage is either high enough to have an impact, in which case my concerns are valid, or it doesn't and in that case, what's the point?

As far as people losing their jobs, many people would rather support themselves than be on the dole, even when the numbers are similar.

You sound like you actually give a damn about low paid workers. I'm not convinced.

I'm not trying to convince you of that, so don't worry. I care about people in general, and don't like to see anyone suffering, but my concern regarding minimum wage is the growing scope of government power. I think economic freedom is every bit as important as religious freedom and government should stay out of it entirely.

 

[SwimExpert]

....

You're habitually addicted to drugs and alcohol. That's the only thing I was able to manage out of all that jibberish.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Ding, ding, ding! Companies want to pay as little as possible, employees want to earn as much as possible. When they agree on a wage, a deal is done!

I mean no duh, ironic you claim not to be a socialist and you think that's an insight.

Only it doesn't always work like that, especially at the bottom end of the scale. You have people who are often desperate. Also these people are less likely to be able to get what they want, the business often has a lot more power over the people. It depends of course. Sometimes it can work in the favor of the worker.

However, like with many things, there should be a stop off point.

Ding ding, oh, you can't get a job because unemployment is really high, well, he's $1 dollar an hour, take it or leave it.

I really don't think you're quite seeing why I want a minimum wage. It should be there to stop unscrupulous businesses taking advantage.

I have the same thoughts on, say, housing. People should only be allowed to spend so much on a mortgage. Why? Because banks will take advantage and clear did take advantage in 2008 onwards.

I don't expect individuals to have to be experts in negotiation, especially when they probably have limited education or capacity to do so, but why then should they be put in an impossible situation. They don't want to have to go on benefits, but they feel like they have a choice of being taken advantage of or go on benefits.

Who wants people on benefits when A) they could be working or B) they actually are working?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

What do you mean "get rid of all the other stuff"? What other stuff?

Stuff like food stamps and the like. I think the US is the only countries where the govt actually props up workers who actually work. In every other country someone who works either doesn't need propping up by the govt or the govt doesn't give anything at all. Walmart et al would then have to pay a higher wage.

Yeah, welfare for people with jobs doesn't make much sense. Call me paranoid, but I see a lot of ulterior motives in the structure of our welfare state. Many of the policies seemed designed to maintain (rather than eliminate) a dependent (and thus, compliant) underclass and supplement low-cost labor for industry.

Right. But that chance only exists for those who can keep their job under the higher wages requirements. You seemed to acknowledge that that wouldn't always be the case, so I'm wondering where that leaves people who lose out. They go from low-wage to no-wage, and lose any chance of supporting themselves.

Firstly, would there be a higher wage requirements? That depends on what minimum wage actually is. I wouldn't set it too high by any means.
But people losing their jobs is people losing their jobs, it's the way it goes.

Well, a minimum wage is either high enough to have an impact, in which case my concerns are valid, or it doesn't and in that case, what's the point?

As far as people losing their jobs, many people would rather support themselves than be on the dole, even when the numbers are similar.

You sound like you actually give a damn about low paid workers. I'm not convinced.

I'm not trying to convince you of that, so don't worry. I care about people in general, and don't like to see anyone suffering, but my concern regarding minimum wage is the growing scope of government power. I think economic freedom is every bit as important as religious freedom and government should stay out of it entirely.

I disagree with you on this one, solely because we have as a society chosen to support those who can't support themselves, so the taxpayer should have a right to demand that employers offer enough pay to keep those who are working off welfare.

Not the guy who stupidly chooses to have ten kids while earning min wage. I wish we'd just let that guy starve; but one person should be able to earn enough to keep himself (or herself) off of welfare.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

....

You're habitually addicted to drugs and alcohol. That's the only thing I was able to manage out of all that jibberish.

OH! Well that's hysterical. I've managed to out your desire to deflect from the argument through baseless projections, as you've no means to engage the argument and hope to rally those who you feel already agree with you, toward some demonstration of popular 'consensus'.

Which, as lame as it is, is all ya could really hope for.

 

[SwimExpert]

....

You're habitually addicted to drugs and alcohol. That's the only thing I was able to manage out of all that jibberish.

OH! Well that's hysterical. I've managed to out your desire to deflect from the argument through baseless projections, as you've no means to engage the argument and hope to rally those who you feel already agree with you, toward some demonstration of popular 'consensus'.

Which, as lame as it is, is all ya could really hope for.

You have to have an actual argument. You provided unintelligible jibberish. If you notice, I've replied to everyone else. Not my fault that you're the only one around here wields English on about the same level as a 2 year old Mexican recovering from a stroke.

 

[The Rabbi]

WM has been losing market share to the dollar stores, precisely because of price.
Your argument is simply wrong.

Actually, Walmart has been primarily losing customers to Amazon and other competitors due to poor product quality, poor customer service, and bad publicity regarding employee pay.

Ah gee, misinformed again.
Dollar store wars likely to hurt Wal-Mart - Fortune
It is true they are competing with Amazon as well but it is a different market.

 

[frigidweirdo]

What do you mean "get rid of all the other stuff"? What other stuff?

Stuff like food stamps and the like. I think the US is the only countries where the govt actually props up workers who actually work. In every other country someone who works either doesn't need propping up by the govt or the govt doesn't give anything at all. Walmart et al would then have to pay a higher wage.

Yeah, welfare for people with jobs doesn't make much sense. Call me paranoid, but I see a lot of ulterior motives in the structure of our welfare state. Many of the policies seemed designed to maintain (rather than eliminate) a dependent (and thus, compliant) underclass and supplement low-cost labor for industry.

Right. But that chance only exists for those who can keep their job under the higher wages requirements. You seemed to acknowledge that that wouldn't always be the case, so I'm wondering where that leaves people who lose out. They go from low-wage to no-wage, and lose any chance of supporting themselves.

Firstly, would there be a higher wage requirements? That depends on what minimum wage actually is. I wouldn't set it too high by any means.
But people losing their jobs is people losing their jobs, it's the way it goes.

Well, a minimum wage is either high enough to have an impact, in which case my concerns are valid, or it doesn't and in that case, what's the point?

As far as people losing their jobs, many people would rather support themselves than be on the dole, even when the numbers are similar.

You sound like you actually give a damn about low paid workers. I'm not convinced.

I'm not trying to convince you of that, so don't worry. I care about people in general, and don't like to see anyone suffering, but my concern regarding minimum wage is the growing scope of government power. I think economic freedom is every bit as important as religious freedom and government should stay out of it entirely.

I think the best example of this is here: Louisiana is the world s prison capital NOLA.com

Louisiana's capitalist prison system which needs goods (read prisoners) to be coming in regularly. It's not in their interests to educate these people, it's in their interests to make them worse when they go out so they come back in again.

What's the point of a minimum wage which doesn't go too high that it has a negative impact? I'd say it's a safety net. It allows people to know where they're at and what they can expect as a bare minimum.

You say many people would rather support themselves than be on the dole. Sure they would. But what happens when they CAN'T support themselves because they're not getting paid enough?

The thing with the minimum wage is, it could quite easily be used to pull the govt back from economic affairs in many cases. Make a simple law that isn't too difficult, then wham. Change welfare laws in a sensible way (as if govt would even have the capacity to know what this means) and you have a safety net built in that means you don't need anything more complex than this, especially for those who work.

I don't believe the govt should not be involved in the economy at all. Monopolies, banks and other such things have shown why the govt is essential in making the economy "fair".