Scott Walker: "Min. wage serves no purpose"

[Conservative65]

Are you kidding? The way companies are today, they'd be trying to pay people $2 an hour, instead of the minimum wage. Of course it serves a purpose.

If the person has $2/hour skills and doing a job that's worth $2/hour, that's what they should be getting paid.

I'm curious, how much would you want to get paid for picking 40,000 pounds of fruit or vegetables?

What you and the rest of you living wage morons don't get is that I know that such an unskilled job pays an unskilled level low wage. That's why, when I had the opportunity, I did EVERYTHING I could so that wouldn't be a likelihood. I don't currently make roughly 6x/hour, although I'm on salary, more than the unskilled worker. I have something to offer because I did what I needed to do so I could.

Picking fruit is an unskilled job. Do you think a person who picks 40,000 pounds of fruit a day, should only be paid $2 an hour? Do they not deserve to live? And should tax payers have to make up the difference when these low paid workers can't afford to feed themselves?

No, we should keep them in Latin America if they can't afford to live here on what they can earn. We should not force employers to pay arbitrary wages, and welfare isn't a job for government, it's a job for Y-O-U. Charity is not an act that can be performed with other people's money. Sucks, huh?

I agree. Too many bleeding hearts seem to think they can claim compassion and consider it charity by how much they support someone else paying.

 

[Unkotare]

Ah, the "living wage." A mythical creature right up there with Bigfoot and "fairness."

 

[Conservative65]

If the person has $2/hour skills and doing a job that's worth $2/hour, that's what they should be getting paid.

I'm curious, how much would you want to get paid for picking 40,000 pounds of fruit or vegetables?

What you and the rest of you living wage morons don't get is that I know that such an unskilled job pays an unskilled level low wage. That's why, when I had the opportunity, I did EVERYTHING I could so that wouldn't be a likelihood. I don't currently make roughly 6x/hour, although I'm on salary, more than the unskilled worker. I have something to offer because I did what I needed to do so I could.

Picking fruit is an unskilled job. Do you think a person who picks 40,000 pounds of fruit a day, should only be paid $2 an hour? Do they not deserve to live? And should tax payers have to make up the difference when these low paid workers can't afford to feed themselves?

No, we should keep them in Latin America if they can't afford to live here on what they can earn. We should not force employers to pay arbitrary wages, and welfare isn't a job for government, it's a job for Y-O-U. Charity is not an act that can be performed with other people's money. Sucks, huh?

Who's going to pick our fruit? American's won't pick 40,000 lbs of fruit a day for $40.

Those who say they can't find a job. If they say no, stop the handouts they get. Someone shouldn't get a choice of whether or not to work because they don't like the pay or the job.

 

[kaz]

No, I've been consistent through and through. I suspect that you have become stricken with partisan blinders

Stopped reading here. Yep, guy, I'm a Republican. Got it. You don't know what a libertarian is either. Here's two clues, we oppose government ownership of our bodies and we don't support using the military for non defensive wars or nation building. Yeah, that's a Republican. If you can figure out what you think and grasp what a libertarian is, let me know. But I"m not reading drivel that starts with that I'm a Republican. Sorry.

 

[Conservative65]

If the person has $2/hour skills and doing a job that's worth $2/hour, that's what they should be getting paid.

You're full of shit. With your anti-worker attitude, we'll all be working in China mines for nothing. LOL!

Good Gawd.

If you think someone should get a wage above the skills to do the job simply based on some bullshit concept of living wage, you're full of shit. I'm not anti-worker. I'm all for the worker getting paid what the job is worth not because they breath and have a heartbeat.

When CEO's are making 600xs their average employee, not only is it unhealthy for our economy, but its a sure sign that people are not getting paid what they are worth.

When someone worth $2/hour demands $15/hour it's not healthy for the economy. When the person whose skills involve nothing more than learning "do you want fries with that" takes on more responsibility and actually provides something just about anyone could do, they might get paid more.

I have three college degrees, two of which are advanced. I'm currently working on a 4th. That means I've spent thousand upon thousands of more hours getting to where I am than the minimum wage worker has done. See, to do what I do, skills have to constantly be upgraded and improved. The broom pusher of today has the very same skills as the broom pusher did 50 years ago.

LOL, sure thing.

50 years ago, a broom pusher could support his family. We had our largest growth when there was less inequality.

That has more to do with the broom pusher realizing he can't have what someone with a higher wage could have. People with low skills today want the same things those of us who provide a marketable skill have.

What I do requires a significantly higher level of skill today than it did 50 years ago. The broom pusher can't say the same.
Therefore, people doing what I do have had their wages grow exponentially while the broom pusher has had his grow arithmetically. If you don't know what that means or grasp that my education, skills, and training have allowed my wages to grow at a faster percentage increase than the broom pusher, I'll explain. You won't understand but you won't be the first one.

 

[kaz]

Who's going to pick our fruit? American's won't pick 40,000 lbs of fruit a day for $40.

Right, that's how wages increase. Not clicking with this market thing, are you Karl-a?

 

[SwimExpert]

Picking fruit is an unskilled job. Do you think a person who picks 40,000 pounds of fruit a day, should only be paid $2 an hour? Do they not deserve to live? And should tax payers have to make up the difference when these low paid workers can't afford to feed themselves?

I see you were watching the Bill Maher a few days ago, when Eva Longoria was on. Let me tell you something about Ms. Longoria. I've met that stupid **** several times. I know a thing or two about her that she isn't quite so quick to advertise. Rare is the raging bitch more raging than Eva Longoria. She talks like she's some kind of caring, compassionate humanitarian. But she's a hypocrite. I've watched her numerous times eating out at restaurants, running the staff like slaves, and then can't even be bothered to tip 10% after demanding all kinds of special treatment. Just another stuck up elitist fuck.

 

[Moonglow]

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?

Are you willing to live on 25% of what you make now?

 

[Moonglow]

Picking fruit is an unskilled job. Do you think a person who picks 40,000 pounds of fruit a day, should only be paid $2 an hour? Do they not deserve to live? And should tax payers have to make up the difference when these low paid workers can't afford to feed themselves?

I see you were watching the Bill Maher a few days ago, when Eva Longoria was on. Let me tell you something about Ms. Longoria. I've met that stupid **** several times. I know a thing or two about her that she isn't quite so quick to advertise. Rare is the raging bitch more raging than Eva Longoria. She talks like she's some kind of caring, compassionate humanitarian. But she's a hypocrite. I've watched her numerous times eating out at restaurants, running the staff like slaves, and then can't even be bothered to tip 10% after demanding all kinds of special treatment. Just another stuck up elitist fuck.

Most wealthy act like that, what's new?

 

[Derideo_Te]

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...

Sending Kaz to Cyberia because I refuse to waste my time on that level of stubborn ignorance.

 

[Moonglow]

You're full of shit. With your anti-worker attitude, we'll all be working in China mines for nothing. LOL!

Good Gawd.

If you think someone should get a wage above the skills to do the job simply based on some bullshit concept of living wage, you're full of shit. I'm not anti-worker. I'm all for the worker getting paid what the job is worth not because they breath and have a heartbeat.

When CEO's are making 600xs their average employee, not only is it unhealthy for our economy, but its a sure sign that people are not getting paid what they are worth.

When someone worth $2/hour demands $15/hour it's not healthy for the economy. When the person whose skills involve nothing more than learning "do you want fries with that" takes on more responsibility and actually provides something just about anyone could do, they might get paid more.

I have three college degrees, two of which are advanced. I'm currently working on a 4th. That means I've spent thousand upon thousands of more hours getting to where I am than the minimum wage worker has done. See, to do what I do, skills have to constantly be upgraded and improved. The broom pusher of today has the very same skills as the broom pusher did 50 years ago.

LOL, sure thing.

50 years ago, a broom pusher could support his family. We had our largest growth when there was less inequality.

That has more to do with the broom pusher realizing he can't have what someone with a higher wage could have. People with low skills today want the same things those of us who provide a marketable skill have.

What I do requires a significantly higher level of skill today than it did 50 years ago. The broom pusher can't say the same.
Therefore, people doing what I do have had their wages grow exponentially while the broom pusher has had his grow arithmetically. If you don't know what that means or grasp that my education, skills, and training have allowed my wages to grow at a faster percentage increase than the broom pusher, I'll explain. You won't understand but you won't be the first one.

So your trade is being a douche? Since you seem to be very capable..and well trained at it....
I always trained people to be able to earn a better wage....

 

[Conservative65]

If you think someone should get a wage above the skills to do the job simply based on some bullshit concept of living wage, you're full of shit. I'm not anti-worker. I'm all for the worker getting paid what the job is worth not because they breath and have a heartbeat.

When CEO's are making 600xs their average employee, not only is it unhealthy for our economy, but its a sure sign that people are not getting paid what they are worth.

When someone worth $2/hour demands $15/hour it's not healthy for the economy. When the person whose skills involve nothing more than learning "do you want fries with that" takes on more responsibility and actually provides something just about anyone could do, they might get paid more.

I have three college degrees, two of which are advanced. I'm currently working on a 4th. That means I've spent thousand upon thousands of more hours getting to where I am than the minimum wage worker has done. See, to do what I do, skills have to constantly be upgraded and improved. The broom pusher of today has the very same skills as the broom pusher did 50 years ago.

LOL, sure thing.

50 years ago, a broom pusher could support his family. We had our largest growth when there was less inequality.

That has more to do with the broom pusher realizing he can't have what someone with a higher wage could have. People with low skills today want the same things those of us who provide a marketable skill have.

What I do requires a significantly higher level of skill today than it did 50 years ago. The broom pusher can't say the same.
Therefore, people doing what I do have had their wages grow exponentially while the broom pusher has had his grow arithmetically. If you don't know what that means or grasp that my education, skills, and training have allowed my wages to grow at a faster percentage increase than the broom pusher, I'll explain. You won't understand but you won't be the first one.

So your trade is being a douche? Since you seem to be very capable..and well trained at it....
I always trained people to be able to earn a better wage....

My trade is making retards like you look like retards. I'm very capable and successful in doing that with you.

 

[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...

Sending Kaz to Cyberia because I refuse to waste my time on that level of stubborn ignorance.

Thank God! You're such a whining, sensitive little baby, posting with you is positively painful.

I'll even do you a solid, you are on ignore now too. Just to help you out. I didn't know I was on ignore, you may have wanted to mention that. I guess you thought I knew since I so rarely replied to your moronic, childish posts. But since you're not man enough to post with people who disagree with you, I'll help you out and make it permanent so you are not allowed to reply to me either.

[spit]hand shake[/spit]

We're done, have a good one, child.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

So, supply and demand is essentially based around what a company can get away with? In most areas this is fine. When it gets down to people having to make a rock and a hard place decision, then it becomes something else.

Do you not think that companies should be limited in what they can do if it is not in the interests of society? For example making massive monopolies, or many of the other things that are regulated?

 

[frigidweirdo]

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"?

Not when the existence of a monopoly itself, other than in certain areas such as a power company, throws supply and demand out of whack simply by existing.

So you agree regulation, at times, is necessary?

 

[frigidweirdo]

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"?

Not unless those putting their savings in the bank weren't aware of what the bank was doing. If someone puts their money into some form of investment that, because of a higher risk, can bring a higher return and it goes bad, they made a choice to do what was being supplied. If the investment was being done illegally, yes.

And if it's illegal it's because it's being regulated. So you agree with the need for regulation of companies!

 

[bripat9643]

'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

Hmmm . . . . no. Walker has read an economics book, so he isn't fooled by the leftist abracadabra.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Nope. It could only "subsidized" if there was some mandated wage the Walmart was obligated to pay. It's not legally obligated to pay a higher wage, so what legitimate authority is claiming its obligated to pay more?

 

[bripat9643]

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"?

Not unless those putting their savings in the bank weren't aware of what the bank was doing. If someone puts their money into some form of investment that, because of a higher risk, can bring a higher return and it goes bad, they made a choice to do what was being supplied. If the investment was being done illegally, yes.

And if it's illegal it's because it's being regulated. So you agree with the need for regulation of companies!

No

 

[Conservative65]

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"?

Not unless those putting their savings in the bank weren't aware of what the bank was doing. If someone puts their money into some form of investment that, because of a higher risk, can bring a higher return and it goes bad, they made a choice to do what was being supplied. If the investment was being done illegally, yes.

And if it's illegal it's because it's being regulated. So you agree with the need for regulation of companies!

No

When it comes to things involving unsafe practices such as working conditions. When it comes to what a company pays it's employees, absolutely not.