Scott Walker: "Min. wage serves no purpose"

[mudwhistle]

I doubt anyone that works for minimum wages would say that the minimum wage serves no purpose.

Anyone that makes more than minimum wage is in no position to suggest what purpose MW has on the worker that depends on minimum wage.

The only purpose for the MW is to give Democrats something to beat over the head of Republicans, plain and simple.

September 9, 2014
How Democrats Use the Minimum Wage Issue To Exploit The Poor
By Michael Bargo, Jr.

The Democrat Party of the U.S. has gained and kept political power by portraying themselves to the masses of people as the only political party that cares about the working middle class and the vulnerable poor. You need us, Democrats love to say at every election cycle, to help you achieve a better life. And as the November election nears, they are once again bringing up the minimum wage issue. Their position is that the Republicans are too insensitive to the needs of the poor to raise the minimum wage. Voters must elect Democrats in order to see a minimum pay raise.

But at some point American voters, particularly the working middle class and poor, may begin to wonder whether or not Democrats are incompetent or something else is at play. The plain truth is: we have a president who now boasts that he can do anything he wants by using his “pen and phone.” He does not need to pass laws through Congress. Indeed, he has been the least cooperative with the House of Representatives of any president in recent American history.

He has usurped Congressional powers granted to Congress by the Constitution. There are two things he could do with his powerful pen and phone about the minimum wage right now. First, he could issue one of his legendary Executive Orders and remove all Federal income taxes and payroll taxes, including Social Security and Medicare, from anyone earning less than fifteen dollars per hour. Secondly, he could raise the Federal minimum wage, at the stroke of his pen, to fifteen dollars an hour, the wage the SEIU have pursued.

Either one of these moves would instantly put more money into the pockets of those who earn just enough to keep themselves in poverty. But he chooses to not do so. In fact, in typical Democratic leadership style, he blames others.

As I have stated here before, he learned his leadership style from the mayors of Chicago, his political alma mater, and the tactics of the Democrat Party of Illinois. And the best way to see what he learned, and understand what Democrats do to exploit the poor with the minimum wage issue, is to see what’s going on in the state of Illinois right now.


Read more: Articles How Democrats Use the Minimum Wage Issue To Exploit The Poor
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook​

 

[dblack]

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.

What I find frustrating about this is that it arbitrarily sets the level at which someone must resort to welfare. It tells them - "If your labor is worth our idea of the acceptable minimum, you're not allowed to work. Go get in the welfare line." It basically mandates these people into state dependency. I don't have a problem with safety nets, but if someone would rather work, I don't see why the state has any business dictating the terms.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Republicans fought Democrats to end slavery, dumbshit.

Sounds like you almost read some history.

It would sound that way to somene who never read any.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

What do you mean by "capable"?
You take some guy who's 17yrs old. Maybe he's got a drug conviction as well. Maybe he can't read well. Maybe he can't add or subtract. Maybe he wont show up all the time. Or if he does he's not dressed appropriately or not sober.
Why should he be worth any more than 5/hr? If that. I might have a job that I'd rather pay someone 2/hr to do and if he does it, great. If not, no big deal.
Now. Take the same guy, train him so he can show up on time clean and sober, and maybe he's worth 7/hr. Give him some remedial tutoring in math and English and now maybe he's worh 8/hr. When he gets the memo that employers pay for performance and he busts his chops and you know he'll be there ready and able to do the job, OK now he's worth 10-15/hr.

 

[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.

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.

Privatized prisons are insane. We're privatizing what should be strictly the role of government and socializing things government shouldn't be involved in at all. It all seems pretty backasswards to me.

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.

But you can have a safety net without minimum wage, and without the supplemental benefits you suggested eliminating.

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?

But why shouldn't individuals be allowed to make the call on how much it takes for them to get by? Let them decide for themselves how badly they want to avoid state dependence. I just don't see the justification, nor the benefit, in the state overriding personal judgement on this matter.

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".

And how has that worked out? State regulation of the economy doesn't wrest control away dominant financial interests. It merely centralizes it and makes it easier for corrupt entities to manipulate.

 

[rightwinger]

Can you explain why there are any jobs that pay more than the minimum wage? In fact, 97% of all jobs pay more than minimum wage.

3% OF THE WORK FORCE GET MINIMUM WAGE YET AN INCREASE OF A DOLLAR OR TWO WOULD CAUSE EVERYTHING TO RISE IN PRICES.

Do you understand how fucking stupid that make the MW haters sound. 3% of the lowest paid workers have all this tremendous monetary/pricing power. The ability to change the economy you all say.

Fucking that's crazy. Give the poor people a raise.

Poor Zeke. Dumb as a rock.
Hey, Zeke, why do you think unions constatntly push for higher min wage? You think it's because they represent "the working man"?? ROFL!

You really are a silly fucking rabbit.

SO go ahead rabbit, why do unions push for higher minimum wage?
Maybe they want to expand the numbers of union members. I wish they could. I wish we had the same amount of union representation that we had in the 50ties and 60ties. Back when the middle class was succeeding, growing, prospering and driving the consumer economy.


Of course, you being the white piece of trash you are have never enjoyed prosperity at any level. You a bankrupt fuck. If not actually, certainly morally.

Yeah, Zeke. That's wrong. How would union membership increase by raising min wage? It wont.
Guess again. Or maybe go do some research.

The ONLY interest that a union has in minimum wage is as it relates to the prevailing wage laws in some states. Union wages based upon a percentage above minimum wage will rise automatically (without the expense of contract negotiations) as minimum wage rises.

Again, the unions only purpose is to get theirs and fuck everyone else.

That is the same attitude management has

 

[kaz]

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.

You make it sound like a contradiction to what I said, you completely supported what I said. They are low end workers, hence, they have little market value. That is a great thing Walmart is doing, giving people with virtually no skills a shot. These are people without experience, education or other skills. The way to make more money is to get a shot, which Walmart gives them. Then the good ones can move on and make more money.

You want to deny them a chance and make them sit at home jobless because no one is paying them $15 an hour or whatever you want them to make. Explain how that helps them. Seriously, you need to process your ideas in reality, not against how you want things to work.

And you don't think they are smart enough to decline the job if they have a better opportunity? Seriously? You know better what is worth it to them in their own lives than they do? You sitting in your ivory tower making decisions over their lives? How do you get your head through doorways?

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.

Tell me again how you're not a socialist...

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

And so you deny them all employment, and that is only because you care so much...

 

[rightwinger]

1% of working americans make minimum wage-------------this is much ado about nothing. But the dems think it will rally their base----------it won't.

What percent of workers make less than they can support a family on and require taxpayers to make up the difference?

 

[kaz]

1% of working americans make minimum wage-------------this is much ado about nothing. But the dems think it will rally their base----------it won't.

What percent of workers make less than they can support a family on and require taxpayers to make up the difference?

Who decides who qualifies for welfare and what they get? The companies? Obviously not, why is it their job to implement your social policy? It isn't...

 

[kaz]

Again, the unions only purpose is to get theirs and fuck everyone else.

That is the same attitude management has

And it's the same attitude you have. The difference is that you and Unions are arguing for government to use guns to force everyone to do it your way.

 

[The Rabbi]

1% of working americans make minimum wage-------------this is much ado about nothing. But the dems think it will rally their base----------it won't.

What percent of workers make less than they can support a family on and require taxpayers to make up the difference?

Why should everyone need to support a family? Most MW earners are living at home.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

1% of working americans make minimum wage-------------this is much ado about nothing. But the dems think it will rally their base----------it won't.

What percent of workers make less than they can support a family on and require taxpayers to make up the difference?

Don't have a family if you can't afford one, duh!

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

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.

Then how is that we had supermarkets and discount department stores around here, employing thousands, before Walmart ever showed up?

Walmart doesn't create jobs in retail, all else being equal. It just moves them from other retailers.

 

[NYcarbineer]

1% of working americans make minimum wage-------------this is much ado about nothing. But the dems think it will rally their base----------it won't.

What percent of workers make less than they can support a family on and require taxpayers to make up the difference?

Why should everyone need to support a family? Most MW earners are living at home.

So you're willing to raise the minimum wage for people not living at home?

lol, I'll bet...

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

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.

Then how is that we had supermarkets and discount department stores around here, employing thousands, before Walmart ever showed up?

Walmart doesn't create jobs in retail, all else being equal. It just moves them from other retailers.

I gues we dont have supermarkets and discount stores anymrore. WHo knew?

 

[The Rabbi]

1% of working americans make minimum wage-------------this is much ado about nothing. But the dems think it will rally their base----------it won't.

What percent of workers make less than they can support a family on and require taxpayers to make up the difference?

Why should everyone need to support a family? Most MW earners are living at home.

So you're willing to raise the minimum wage for people not living at home?

lol, I'll bet...

No, I'm willing to point out the min wage is a piece of shit policy that only the terminally ignorant and stupid could love.
People like you for example.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Then how is that we had supermarkets and discount department stores around here, employing thousands, before Walmart ever showed up?

Walmart doesn't create jobs in retail, all else being equal. It just moves them from other retailers.

I gues we dont have supermarkets and discount stores anymrore. WHo knew?

When Walmart moved in across town from me, the big Kmart and the big P&C supermarket both closed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

1% of working americans make minimum wage-------------this is much ado about nothing. But the dems think it will rally their base----------it won't.

What percent of workers make less than they can support a family on and require taxpayers to make up the difference?

Why should everyone need to support a family? Most MW earners are living at home.

So you're willing to raise the minimum wage for people not living at home?

lol, I'll bet...

No, I'm willing to point out the min wage is a piece of shit policy that only the terminally ignorant and stupid could love.
People like you for example.

IOW you have nothing.

 

[rightwinger]

1% of working americans make minimum wage-------------this is much ado about nothing. But the dems think it will rally their base----------it won't.

What percent of workers make less than they can support a family on and require taxpayers to make up the difference?

Who decides who qualifies for welfare and what they get? The companies? Obviously not, why is it their job to implement your social policy? It isn't...

By paying a wage that requires the taxpayer to support their workforce, they make profit at the taxpayers expense
Not my problem if my workers can't afford to live here....let the taxpayer make up the difference

 

[The Rabbi]

1% of working americans make minimum wage-------------this is much ado about nothing. But the dems think it will rally their base----------it won't.

What percent of workers make less than they can support a family on and require taxpayers to make up the difference?

Why should everyone need to support a family? Most MW earners are living at home.

So you're willing to raise the minimum wage for people not living at home?

lol, I'll bet...

No, I'm willing to point out the min wage is a piece of shit policy that only the terminally ignorant and stupid could love.
People like you for example.

IOW you have nothing.

Translation: I've lost this argument so need to deflect.