Scott Walker: "Min. wage serves no purpose"

[kaz]

LOL, market wages are "artifically low." There is only one way to pay an "artificially" low wage, that is if government forces workers to work.

Not really. He's right, wages are artificially low. But what he won't accept is the number one reason they are so: Illegal immigrants.

Pubs just love illegal, easily bullied workers. They have refused a good SS/ID card for years, while distracting the hater dupes with unconstitutional harassment laws and a useless, un-American Berlin Wall.

I'm a Republican ... and you're a rocket scientist ...

 

[francoHFW]

You're a chump of the greedy idiot megarich Pubs. Pass the Schumer/Graham bill with a good SS/ID card and end this Pub bs...

 

[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.

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?

Your lack of honesty and integrity is on display!

 

[SwimExpert]

So if people have better offers than Walmart, why are they taking the walmart jobs? That makes no sense, Homey.

What? I never said that they have better offers. I said that the wages are "artificially" low. Illegal immigration has a substantial depressing effect on wages, particularly for low skill jobs. If the options are minimum wage at in a laborious job at a meat packing plant that won't pay better because they heavily rely on illegal labor, or minimum wage at Walmart, the "better" option still ends up being depressed.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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?"

Yet another deflection. Corporate Welfare is NOT a "social policy".

I will not bother with your deflections until you are willing to admit that you support corporate welfare in the form of taxpayer's subsidizing Walmart's payroll. Because that is exactly what you are doing with your endless deflections.

 

[initforme]

Employers that offer low wages should not expect to attract good, even decent workers. They would never settle for, or start for, 7.25 an hour. The advantage of min wage is that workers can quit one and walk into another without problem. I say leave them unfilled.

 

[Conservative65]

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 have a solution. Let Walmart continue paying the employees as they are since the wages are equivalent to the skills needed to do those jobs, stop all welfare programs, then the good intentioned, bleeding hearts can prove they are as compassionate as they claim by giving the ones they think need it their money.

 

[initforme]

So if an adult is working for 7.25 an hour/40 hours per week and is actively employed, what is the hurt in providing them some gov't help? I say help em out.

 

[The Rabbi]

It is nt the company's fault that the worker isnt worth more than min wage.

But this assumes an altruistic employer. Which is an unjustifiable assumption. Employers don't pay people what they are "worth." They pay people what they will settle for. And this is the point that both sides routinely ignore, and it is why both sides are habitually wrong with their arguments.

It assumes no such thing. Employers pay what they need to get the employees they want. Employees accept the best offer they can get. That's called the market.

 

[The Rabbi]

Wow, that was incoherent even for you.
What I described happens every single fucking day.

Alot of foolish things happen every single day. Doesn't mean they are suddenly smart things to do.

Not a question of smart (although I think it is). It is what happens.

 

[The Rabbi]

So if people have better offers than Walmart, why are they taking the walmart jobs? That makes no sense, Homey.

What? I never said that they have better offers. I said that the wages are "artificially" low. Illegal immigration has a substantial depressing effect on wages, particularly for low skill jobs. If the options are minimum wage at in a laborious job at a meat packing plant that won't pay better because they heavily rely on illegal labor, or minimum wage at Walmart, the "better" option still ends up being depressed.

Meat packing plants do not rely on illegal labor.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Scott Walker's the Koch brothers pink poodle bitch. If he were more than that I'd comment on things he says.

 

[The Rabbi]

Scott Walker's the Koch brothers pink poodle bitch. If he were more than that I'd comment on things he says.

And you're George Soros' buttboi.

 

[JFK_USA]

The problem with "let the market dictate what a worker should be paid" is assuming that the workers have equal bargaining power to the employer. The employer can wait out any job for the right employee. The employee doesn't have the resources to wait for a better opportunity in some cases. So when you Say there should be no minimum wage, it is giving a greenlight to these businesses to pay little to no money for workers. Workers do not have the same bargaining power that a rich business owner has. The employer can set the price at $1/hr and a person will be desperate enough to take that job because something is better than nothing. Then they have "set the market" to that price.

In theory, the free market shouldn't have a minimum wage. However, the market we live in it doesn't work that way because there is an unequal balance of power and we must prevent abuses from the people who have the power towards the people who are powerless.

 

[The Rabbi]

The problem with "let the market dictate what a worker should be paid" is assuming that the workers have equal bargaining power to the employer. The employer can wait out any job for the right employee. The employee doesn't have the resources to wait for a better opportunity in some cases. So when you Say there should be no minimum wage, it is giving a greenlight to these businesses to pay little to no money for workers. Workers do not have the same bargaining power that a rich business owner has. The employer can set the price at $1/hr and a person will be desperate enough to take that job because something is better than nothing. Then they have "set the market" to that price.

In theory, the free market shouldn't have a minimum wage. However, the market we live in it doesn't work that way because there is an unequal balance of power and we must prevent abuses from the people who have the power towards the people who are powerless.

That might have been true 100 years ago.
But I can tell you've never run a business.

 

[francoHFW]

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 have a solution. Let Walmart continue paying the employees as they are since the wages are equivalent to the skills needed to do those jobs, stop all welfare programs, then the good intentioned, bleeding hearts can prove they are as compassionate as they claim by giving the ones they think need it their money.

We already are, in an organized way. Sorry we're not going back to poorhouses and potters' fields like the "good old days". RW idiocy.

 

[francoHFW]

Yup, people fought and died for unions and benefits just for greed because tycoons always paid them what they were worth.
As for small businessmen like Rabbi (?), it's Pubs who block lower taxes for small business while pandering to giant corporations and greedy idiot billionaires...

 

[bripat9643]

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

Nope. Standard oil was no monopoly.

 

[Ame®icano]

I'm not saying that minimum wage should cover iPhones, TVs and other non-essential items. I'm talking a living wage, enough to be able to eat properly with.

When they spend money on iPhone, Nike's, PlayStation and other non-essential items, why should I care if they don't have enough for food?

 

[Ame®icano]

This is one way that wages stagnate, and we have seen that quite a bit over the past 30 years.

You know another way that wages stagnate? People continually settle for lower wages.

And that's my problem, exactly how?