Scott Walker: "Min. wage serves no purpose"

[kaz]

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.

Walmart pays them market rates. Government comes in and decides it's not enough and pays them more. There is no possible way to call that "corporate welfare." Welfare is taking someone's money and giving it to someone else. Walmart is just paying market rates, government is giving Walmart nothing, government is giving the employees someone's money they didn't earn. Government is doing that, not Walmart.

And for all your indignation over wanting your question to be addressed, and when it is, you just don't like the answer, you still are hiding from mine. Answer the question: "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?"

That's a "deflection?" What you are saying by calling that a deflection is you want to punish Walmart, not help the employees. The fate of the employees in your view is a "deflection." I think it's the point.

 

[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?

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.

Agreed, then Walmart won't be getting "corporate welfare." You in, derideo?

 

[kaz]

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.

Thanks! You just made my point to derideo, paying the employees more money is the choice of government, not Walmart. Ouch! Undone by your Homey...

 

[zeke]

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.

Agreed, then Walmart won't be getting "corporate welfare." You in, derideo?

You don't like the more accurate term of "corporate welfare" eh.

Well then lets call it something you will like. How about "government subsidized hourly employees of Walmart"

Is that "better" for you?

 

[kaz]

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.

Agreed, then Walmart won't be getting "corporate welfare." You in, derideo?

You don't like the more accurate term of "corporate welfare" eh.

Well then lets call it something you will like. How about "government subsidized hourly employees of Walmart"

Is that "better" for you?

Begging the question

 

[SwimExpert]

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?

Let me get this straight....Are you seriously trying to say that illegal labor does not depress wages? Just because one does not have a better offer than Walmart does not mean that the wage offered by Walmart isn't depressed due to illegal labor.

 

[SwimExpert]

And that's my problem, exactly how?

It's not your problem, unless you're settling for a low wage. The point is that individuals have direct access to opportunities to increase their wages, without the government having to mandate it.

 

[Contumacious]

You don't like the more accurate term of "corporate welfare" eh.

Well then lets call it something you will like. How about "government subsidized hourly employees of Walmart"

Is that "better" for you?

Welfare Payments To Employees Are Not Subsidies To WalMart And McDonalds


"corporations are paying what they can get away with: yes, [they] will pay as little as they can for anything in order to maximise their profits. But the extension of this is that given the supply of that low skill labour in the US and the demand for that low skill labour then those companies are paying what that low skill labour is actually worth. This is definitional: in a market economy something is worth what someone will pay for it."

.http://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors...s-are-not-subsidies-to-walmart-and-mcdonalds/

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

Let me get this straight....Are you seriously trying to say that illegal labor does not depress wages? Just because one does not have a better offer than Walmart does not mean that the wage offered by Walmart isn't depressed due to illegal labor.

I'd ask for proof of that statement but there isnt any.

If the gov't cut back food stamps and other low income bennies does anyone think WalMart would raise wages in response? No, of course not. Ergo there is no subsidy.
Another left wing nut talking point easily debunked.

 

[SwimExpert]

I'd ask for proof of that statement but there isnt any.

According to Harvard labor economist George Borjas, they are profiting $435 billion per year. However, American workers are being displaced, and their wages are being depressed by cheaper foreign competition right in their own country. The $435 billion business profit from using lower cost legal and illegal foreign labor depresses American workers’ pay by $405 billion. Divided by 144.3 million employed American workers, this amounts to $2,807 per American worker per year.

The High Cost of Low-Skilled Immigrant Labor The Tribune Papers

If the gov't cut back food stamps and other low income bennies does anyone think WalMart would raise wages in response? No, of course not. Ergo there is no subsidy.

Actually, I think they would. When the rabble starts to get hungry they'll revolt. The nobles will have to appease the teeming masses. But the good news is that any rise in wages would all play out through market forces, which is obviously infinitely better than legislation.

Another left wing nut talking point easily debunked.

You so called conservatives on this board are a peculiar breed. I don't see how a company being responsible for paying its workers, as opposed to actively encouraging welfare dependence in hopes that they'll continue to settle for inadequate wages, is a liberal position. Seems to me you're less conservative and more partisan.

 

[Contumacious]

I'd ask for proof of that statement but there isnt any.

According to Harvard labor economist George Borjas, they are profiting $435 billion per year. However, American workers are being displaced, and their wages are being depressed by cheaper foreign competition right in their own country. The $435 billion business profit from using lower cost legal and illegal foreign labor depresses American workers’ pay by $405 billion. Divided by 144.3 million employed American workers, this amounts to $2,807 per American worker per year.

The High Cost of Low-Skilled Immigrant Labor The Tribune Papers

The government has no authority to take sides, no authority to interdict, detain or deport.

If the gov't cut back food stamps and other low income bennies does anyone think WalMart would raise wages in response? No, of course not. Ergo there is no subsidy.

Actually, I think they would. When the rabble starts to get hungry they'll revolt. The nobles will have to appease the teeming masses. But the good news is that any rise in wages would all play out through market forces, which is obviously infinitely better than legislation.

Can employers tax or print money ? If they believe you labor is worth 7.00 why should they be required to pay $15?

You so called conservatives on this board are a peculiar breed. I don't see how a company being responsible for paying its workers, as opposed to actively encouraging welfare dependence in hopes that they'll continue to settle for inadequate wages, is a liberal position. Seems to me you're less conservative and more partisan.

Again , companies pay for what they believe your labor is worth.


Politicians will "grant rights" depending on what they believe your vote is worth to them.


.

 

[SwimExpert]

corporations are paying what they can get away with: yes, [they] will pay as little as they can for anything in order to maximise their profits. But the extension of this is that given the supply of that low skill labour in the US and the demand for that low skill labour then those companies are paying what that low skill labour is actually worth. This is definitional: in a market economy something is worth what someone will pay for it."

It is one thing when a company says "This is our offer, welcome aboard, managing your finances is your responsibility, we'll reward you when you've earned it." Unfortunately in the case of Walmart and McDonalds, that is not the discussion. Instead it's "Thanks for your years of service, no we won't give you a raise despite all of your hard work, let me help you fill out this welfare application because we 'care' about you. Hey boss, look how I'm saving the company money! I'm avoiding a catastrophic collapse in morale from our crappy wages by putting these fools on welfare!"

That being said, it can't be emphasized enough that raising the minimum wage will do fuck all about it.

 

[Contumacious]

corporations are paying what they can get away with: yes, [they] will pay as little as they can for anything in order to maximise their profits. But the extension of this is that given the supply of that low skill labour in the US and the demand for that low skill labour then those companies are paying what that low skill labour is actually worth. This is definitional: in a market economy something is worth what someone will pay for it."

It is one thing when a company says "This is our offer, welcome aboard, managing your finances is your responsibility, we'll reward you when you've earned it." Unfortunately in the case of Walmart and McDonalds, that is not the discussion. Instead it's "Thanks for your years of service, no we won't give you a raise despite all of your hard work, let me help you fill out this welfare application because we 'care' about you. Hey boss, look how I'm saving the company money! I'm avoiding a catastrophic collapse in morale from our crappy wages by putting these fools on welfare!"

That being said, it can't be emphasized enough that raising the minimum wage will do fuck all about it.

It is not the Corporations , nor the taxpayers' responsibility to ensure that someone gets a minimum income.

.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

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

So big money buys government, and you want more government. Liar, you don't believe that. If you did, you would be a small government libertarian instead of a socialist. Ironically I do believe what you said, you're completely right, money does buy government. Which is why I am a small government libertarian.

Money seeks power. The more successful you are in growing government, the more you motivate those with money to control it. And congress runs on money, they are for sale. Read your own posts on money buying government, only this time believe what you said. And you will stop being a Democrat.

Jesus, "Money seeks power". Money is an inanimate object, sort of like your brain. The rest of your post doesn't make a scintilla of sense either. Scrambled wordles.

 

[zeke]

You don't like the more accurate term of "corporate welfare" eh.

Well then lets call it something you will like. How about "government subsidized hourly employees of Walmart"

Is that "better" for you?

Welfare Payments To Employees Are Not Subsidies To WalMart And McDonalds


"corporations are paying what they can get away with: yes, [they] will pay as little as they can for anything in order to maximise their profits. But the extension of this is that given the supply of that low skill labour in the US and the demand for that low skill labour then those companies are paying what that low skill labour is actually worth. This is definitional: in a market economy something is worth what someone will pay for it."

.

Maybe you could look up the meaning of the word "of". It is different than the word "to".

And really you have no idea of the skill level of a Walmart employee. It may be that the Walmart job was the only job they could find and get. Regardless of skill level.

Guy could be a good mechanic. Woman could be a good baker.

BUT THE ONLY JOBS THEY COULD FIND WAS AT WALMART. Regardless of their skill level.

You are making an assumption that just because they work at Walmart, that their skill level is very low. Some are, some aren't.

 

[SwimExpert]

The government has no authority to take sides, no authority to interdict, detain or deport.

What? Are you saying the government has no business deporting illegal immigrants? That's ridiculous.

Can employers tax or print money ? If they believe you labor is worth 7.00 why should they be required to pay $15?

What does printing money have to do with it? And where did I ever say they should be required to pay any given amount of money?

Again , companies pay for what they believe your labor is worth.

Ugh, people need to get off this ridiculous argument. It's a ridiculous, elitist, self entitled belief. Nobody is going to just pony up what you are "worth." They are going to pay what they can convince you to settle for.

 

[kaz]

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?

Let me get this straight....Are you seriously trying to say that illegal labor does not depress wages? Just because one does not have a better offer than Walmart does not mean that the wage offered by Walmart isn't depressed due to illegal labor.

Again the irony, I oppose allowing free access to our country for illegal aliens and you support it. Or at least you vote for and don't criticize your party for it. Where do you think this is getting you exactly?

But as for the retail market, no, illegal aliens don't affect wages negatively. That isn't where they typically work. Certainly Walmart isn't hiring them, too risky. It's job areas that are harder to track. Construction, farming, some manufacturing, house cleaning and childcare. Not typically retail, and certainly not major retail like Walmart.

 

[kaz]

"Money seeks power". Money is an inanimate object

All I can say is...



Wow, you're an idiot.

 

[SwimExpert]

Again the irony, I oppose allowing free access to our country for illegal aliens and you support it. Or at least you vote for and don't criticize your party for it. Where do you think this is getting you exactly?

What the fuck are you talking about, guy? I'm a Republican. I oppose illegal immigration.

But as for the retail market, no, illegal aliens don't affect wages negatively. That isn't where they typically work. Certainly Walmart isn't hiring them, too risky.

Actually, Walmart has been hit repeatedly for hiring illegals. In any event, even if they weren't hiring illegals, that doesn't mean that illegal labor doesn't have an impact on market wages for Walmart employees. After all, it's an open market.

It's job areas that are harder to track. Construction, farming, some manufacturing, house cleaning and childcare. Not typically retail, and certainly not major retail like Walmart.

Low and unskilled positions. You talk like you think these all exist within vacuums. As if people are obligated to stay in exactly one field for their entire lives.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'd ask for proof of that statement but there isnt any.

According to Harvard labor economist George Borjas, they are profiting $435 billion per year. However, American workers are being displaced, and their wages are being depressed by cheaper foreign competition right in their own country. The $435 billion business profit from using lower cost legal and illegal foreign labor depresses American workers’ pay by $405 billion. Divided by 144.3 million employed American workers, this amounts to $2,807 per American worker per year.

The High Cost of Low-Skilled Immigrant Labor The Tribune Papers

If the gov't cut back food stamps and other low income bennies does anyone think WalMart would raise wages in response? No, of course not. Ergo there is no subsidy.

Actually, I think they would. When the rabble starts to get hungry they'll revolt. The nobles will have to appease the teeming masses. But the good news is that any rise in wages would all play out through market forces, which is obviously infinitely better than legislation.

Another left wing nut talking point easily debunked.

You so called conservatives on this board are a peculiar breed. I don't see how a company being responsible for paying its workers, as opposed to actively encouraging welfare dependence in hopes that they'll continue to settle for inadequate wages, is a liberal position. Seems to me you're less conservative and more partisan.

OK there was no proof of that statement. Just an ipse dixit fallacy.
As to the last, conservatives believe ina free market. If an employer wants to offer 2/hr and an employee chooses to accept it, what is it anyone else's business?