Scott Walker: "Min. wage serves no purpose"

[hadit]

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.

Sure, they could be a very skilled brain surgeon, but the job they're doing does NOT require a high level of skill. That's why the job is not worth more than minimum wage. Raise the wage too high and the job disappears.

 

[CowboyTed]

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?

Walker makes a lot of sense.......if you don't require a minimum wage, employers will pay two or three times that out of the goodness of their heart

Do you think workers will work for nothing out the goodness of their own hearts?
Fool.

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.

I did the equivalent of a BA in Economics... And you are talking out of your ass...

The premise is simple: If companies don't pay a living wage then the government (i.e. tax payers) have to make up the short fall. That is simple.

It you allow them to have some disposable income they will spend it and drive the economy better than money in a rich man's pocket. Poor people spend quicker than Rich people and also extra money in there pockets changes their spending habits more than a rich person... This is actual fact not something pulled out of my arse.

So why do the right wingers here want higher taxes to pay for the short fall?

 

[The Rabbi]

He's being under attack for saying stuff that is completely true.

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?

Walker makes a lot of sense.......if you don't require a minimum wage, employers will pay two or three times that out of the goodness of their heart

Do you think workers will work for nothing out the goodness of their own hearts?
Fool.

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.

I did the equivalent of a BA in Economics... And you are talking out of your ass...

The premise is simple: If companies don't pay a living wage then the government (i.e. tax payers) have to make up the short fall. That is simple.

It you allow them to have some disposable income they will spend it and drive the economy better than money in a rich man's pocket. Poor people spend quicker than Rich people and also extra money in there pockets changes their spending habits more than a rich person... This is actual fact not something pulled out of my arse.

So why do the right wingers here want higher taxes to pay for the short fall?

You have the equivalent of a BS in Talking Points. Its clear you never studied Econ.
For starters, there is no "living wage." It is a chimera like "fairness" that libs dreamt up.
Second, taxpayers do not have to do anything. If someone's wages fall short of his living standard he can adjust his living standard or pick up more work.
Third, poor people spending money does not drive the economy That is more lib bullshit. Business investment drives the economy, producing new and better products that grow market share.
No, you pulled all of that not out of your ass but someone else's. Maybe Krugman.

 

[SwimExpert]

OK there was no proof of that statement. Just an ipse dixit fallacy.

I think you need to learn the definition of ipse dixit.

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?

You seem to be under the delusion that I have not already endorsed abolishing the minimum wage.

 

[kaz]

OK there was no proof of that statement. Just an ipse dixit fallacy.

I think you need to learn the definition of ipse dixit.

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?

You seem to be under the delusion that I have not already endorsed abolishing the minimum wage.

You seem to be confused about what you believe, so why would we be clear?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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... ?

To exploit cheap labor.

 

[Iceweasel]

I did the equivalent of a BA in Economics... And you are talking out of your ass...

The premise is simple: If companies don't pay a living wage then the government (i.e. tax payers) have to make up the short fall. That is simple.

You're talking out of your ass. Your socialist econ professor lied to you. Companies pay what they need to. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires government to support citizens with other people's money.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

.

The People can choose to make it their responsibility, as they have for decades.

 

[paulitician]

Walker's done a good job. He's turned things around a bit. And obviously the Communists/Progressives are pissy about that. He's trending, they're not. Most Americans are completely sick of Public School Teachers constantly bitching about supposedly being treated so badly.

The People don't wanna hear that anymore. They're over it. Life's tough. And that's that. The Communists have lost bigtime on that one. Walker can hold his head up. He's done an admirable job up there.

 

[The Rabbi]

OK there was no proof of that statement. Just an ipse dixit fallacy.

I think you need to learn the definition of ipse dixit.

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?

You seem to be under the delusion that I have not already endorsed abolishing the minimum wage.

You seem to be confused about what you believe, so why would we be clear?

Quoted for truth.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The fact that people are depending on minimum wage is the real problem.... for most folks, minimum wage hasn't been an issue in their lives since they were teenagers.

 

[The Rabbi]

The fact that people are depending on minimum wage is the real problem.... for most folks, minimum wage hasn't been an issue in their lives since they were teenagers.

For about 96% of workers it isnt an issue. A nd of those 4% it isnt the same 4% as the average tenure at min wage is something like 18 months.

 

[SwimExpert]

You seem to be confused about what you believe, so why would we be clear?

The person who tells you what you think is no different than the tyrant who will tell what you should think.

 

[kaz]

You seem to be confused about what you believe, so why would we be clear?

The person who tells you what you think is no different than the tyrant who will tell what you should think.

I am not saying I know what you think, I'm saying I don't. You seem to be switching sides as frequently as you swim laps from one end of the pool to the other and back again. Maybe you could come up with one position and stick to it?

 

[Conservative65]

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

If the government wouldn't pass laws handing one person's money to another persons through social welfare, that Walmart paid a skill level equivalent wage would be irrelevant.

 

[Conservative65]

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...

The problem is that what Walmart pays is none of the government's business. Your problem is you think someone that makes a low wage because they have low skills should even be subsidized by the government. No one deserves another person's money. When the government sets a minimum wage or provides handouts funded by taxpayers, it tells a business how much of what they have should go to an employee and how much of what an actual taxpayer earns should go to some leech. Neither are the place of the government.

 

[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.

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

They don't.

 

[Conservative65]

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"?

Not if it's based on supply and demand. Supply and demand being out of whack isn't determined by whether or not people like the situation but whether or not the laws of both are working as they should.

 

[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...

The problem is that what Walmart pays is none of the government's business. Your problem is you think someone that makes a low wage because they have low skills should even be subsidized by the government. No one deserves another person's money. When the government sets a minimum wage or provides handouts funded by taxpayers, it tells a business how much of what they have should go to an employee and how much of what an actual taxpayer earns should go to some leech. Neither are the place of the government.

Got it, LOL, I'm a libertarian who supports the welfare state. You be trippin, dude...

 

[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?

They don't.

You might want to re-read the conversation because you're massively confused.