Scott Walker: "Min. wage serves no purpose"

[Ame®icano]

Guess what dude. You are already spending your tax dollars helping to provide basics for the poorly paid worker.

Maybe you don't read much, but a great many of the MW workers qualify for government assistance, be it housing assistance, heating assistance or food assistance.

How come you didn't already know that?

By raising MW I would be paying even more, because they would just move poverty line up and we're again at the same page.

 

[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.

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

And it could NEVER happen again? Really? Not to mention that no matter how low you pay someone, they are still human. They can't work all day without breaks, robots can. Those robots are getting more sophisticated and while they have high upfront costs, the rate of return is astounding. Again, as you say, business will do what is best for them, not for society.

At some point, technology will take over those "meaningless" jobs and other skilled labor jobs. Meaning good, hard working people can't find work. If companies aren't willing to hire people because technology can do it for cheaper, what do you do with all those people out of work? Starve to death?

 

[Ame®icano]

Well no shit red. People with higher skills get paid more than low skill workers. Was that an epiphany for you?
What you can't understand is that without a floor for wages, the constant pressure on ALL hourly wages would be down or flat. Just like it has been with no increase in MW. Flat wages or declining wages for the hourly worker.

Load of BS.

Pressure can lower the wages and it can make them higher. That pressure is called supply and demand. If company can find someone to do my job for less money, they should do it. The thing is, they really can't and because of that, my rate is continuously going up. The moment they even just try to talk about lowering my wage, I'm gone.

 

[Ame®icano]

As I said to someone else, 1% of american workers make minimum wage, most of them are teens working part time--------------------this is a non-issue, but you libs think it helps your cause----it doesn't.

It makes them feel good about themselves. That's important. It also make MW workers believe they are being helped, but the truth is, they're just selling their asses... sorry, they're selling their votes for cheap, just like their labor. If they knew any better, and of course, libs wont let them know any better, they wouldn't be selling neither. Anyways, it's always easier to play victim.

 

[Ame®icano]

Did Walmart put those public assistance laws on the books? Why is it Walmart's fault when congress passes stupid laws?

I agree with you, People who are working should not get public assistance.

Agree completely. If they can't live on what they make from Walmart, they should quit. As long government is making up for the difference, they will never leave.

 

[Ame®icano]

What could unions have done to save the jobs lost to foreign countries, like China?

Should American labor have said,

instead of moving all those jobs to China to get labor for a buck an hour, keep them here, and we'll work for a buck an hour...

Really? That's your vision of America.

And the reason that companies are moving to China is... ?

 

[Ame®icano]

Walmart will be hauling out the plastic bins in the next couple of weeks, and installing them in the employee areas to gather up donations for those fellow "Associates" who are needy....Their own employees.

They are a shining example of how a free market without any kind of laws to protect laborers works for THEM. The Waltons hold 4 positions in the top 10 wealthiest Americans: Christy Walton, Jim Walton, Alice Walton and S. Robson Walton: The Richest People in America - Forbes

Shame on my company... they didn't even provide plastic bins, only Lions tickets.

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

I wonder why is that? Maybe because there are better paying jobs around and if they don't pay more, people would leave elsewhere. It's been told several times already, but in case you didn't see it, or ignored it, it's called supply and demand.

 

[Contumacious]

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 problem with "let the government dictate what a worker should be paid" is that the government does not have the authority to dictate wages or takes sides - Company XYZ is owned by Americans and the worker is an American --the government is supposed to be neutral.

Americans who are on a fixed income or poor need to buy the best for the least amount possible.

. The reason a politician would take sides in this issue is because his research has shown that his constituency is willing to exchange their votes for the politicians intervention.

 

[Ame®icano]

Ask these dumbasses how Costco manages to make a profit and also pay workers $15+ per hour.

"The company's starting pay is $11.50 per hour, and the average employee wage is $21 per hour, not including overtime."

Tell me, if Costco pays more, why people are working for Walmart?

BTW, Walmart in ND pays $17/hr. Why?

 

[Ame®icano]

I would bet that McDonalds prices are higher in ND than in other places, because of the higher pay to workers.

Good bet. Big Mac cost $1 more then average US price.

 

[Ame®icano]

If Walmart paid their employees that $6.2 billion that would be $6.2 LESS that taxpayers would have to pay.

Why should corporations like Walmart and McDonalds enjoy the benefits of taxpayer subsidized payrolls?

Why taxpayers are paying those $6.2 billion anyways?

And, Walmart and McD are not enjoying "benefits of taxpayer subsidized payrolls". Their workers are.

 

[Borillar]

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?

Sure it serves a purpose. It keeps employers from paying their workers even less.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

'Scott Walker: "Min. wage serves no purpose"'

As is the case with most republicans, Walker has nothing but contempt for working Americans.

And as is the case with most republicans, Walker is wrong:

Why Raising The Minimum Wage Is Beneficial For Individuals And Businesses The National Memo

 

[Ame®icano]

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

And 14% approval or 86% disapproval comes from left and right. You talk about big money but you left out big labor, big entitlements etc.

 

[Ame®icano]

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

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.

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.

Somewhat I agreed with you first time you posted this. Then you posted it 4-5 more times. Annoying.

 

[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.

And it could NEVER happen again? Really? Not to mention that no matter how low you pay someone, they are still human. They can't work all day without breaks, robots can. Those robots are getting more sophisticated and while they have high upfront costs, the rate of return is astounding. Again, as you say, business will do what is best for them, not for society.

At some point, technology will take over those "meaningless" jobs and other skilled labor jobs. Meaning good, hard working people can't find work. If companies aren't willing to hire people because technology can do it for cheaper, what do you do with all those people out of work? Starve to death?

"It isnt true, sure. But it might be in some mythical time."
Yeah, that's a great argument. Or not.

 

[frigidweirdo]

If the employer hires anyone, it is at a minimum level which the government has set not what the employer set. When a minimum is in place at all, supply and demand is out of whack. Supply and demand dictates the wage not an employer hiring at it.

So, supply and demand is out of whack. When there's a recession and many people are unemployed and supply and demand say that the wage is $1 an hour which doesn't even cover their food and their ride to work, isn't that "out of whack"?

Also, when a giant multi-national company wants to buy up every single shop in town, but the govt doesn't let them, doesn't this mean that "supply and demand is out of whack"?

When a bank uses up people's savings and then goes bankrupt and did so because of a complete lack of regulation, doesn't this mean that "supply and demand is out of whack"?

 

[frigidweirdo]

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?

Well that's a different matter, isn't it?

 

[kaz]

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.

So they don't have better offers? So you admit Walmart is offering them for their time more than anyone else is? Again, you just established it is not "artificially low." Offering more than anyone else being "artificially low" is preposterous. Low end workers get an offer from Walmart that is better than anyone else is offering them ... Which means what when you take that offer away from them? ... You didn't think this through, did you?

It's the shear arrogance of making other people's choices for them, how do you get your head through doorways? You sit there making decisions over other people's lives taking that choice away from them. And taking their job away from them. But only because you care so much. Yeah.