Scott Walker: "Min. wage serves no purpose"

[frigidweirdo]

1% of working americans make minimum wage-------------this is much ado about nothing. But the dems think it will rally their base----------it won't.

So if only 1% of the country is in a group, then we should just ignore them?

 

[Conservative65]

What the one doing the paying offers. What people like you, meaning someone that doesn't own another person's business, thinks a business owner should pay is irrelevant. If you think certain jobs are worth a certain amount, start a business in that field and pay your employees what you think they should pay.

So a person is only worth what someone offers them?

I don't necessarily agree.

If there aren't enough workers in a city or town, then a worker is worth more for their skill than when there's 25% unemployment? Are you paying for the skill or are you paying because there's a lack of supply?

Should, say, a disadvantaged person be taken advantage of, and work for less than it costs them to live? I'm talking like 40 hours a week.

How much should a company pay just to have a human being in a job in their company, even if they can't even read and write?

Also there are issues with laws which force to people to find jobs in order to get welfare, should they be forced to find jobs that don't pay enough money to live on?

Some might consider that having someone earning too little money is abuse.

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.

Your agreement isn't necessary for it to be so. If the person doing the paying thinks a job is worth a certain amount, that's what it's worth not some arbitrary amount you bleeding hearts think another person should pay.

A person should be paid based on the skills that person offers not simply because they exist. If the disadvantage a person has is the skill level they offer, the problem isn't with the person doing the paying but with the one offering low skills.

Only bleeding hearts think it's abuse. Those that live in reality pay based on skills not existence. However, if you think someone doesn't have enough, you're more than welcome to subsidize them with your own money. We both know you won't because that's not how the bleeding heart mentality works.

You want someone with low skills to have basic needs, take them to the store to buy their food, pay their medical bills, etc. but don't demand I do it your way.

 

[SwimExpert]

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.

 

[SwimExpert]

Competent performance on the job is what drives up wages, not government edict.

Actually, this isn't true, either. Competent performance at the negotiating table is what drives your wages up. Rarely will an employer pay you more than you'll require them to pay.

 

[Redfish]

Competent performance on the job is what drives up wages, not government edict.

Actually, this isn't true, either. Competent performance at the negotiating table is what drives your wages up. Rarely will an employer pay you more than you'll require them to pay.

yes, supply and demand should set the price of labor. If you have skills and education then your labor is worth more because there are fewer people with your skill set. If you have minimum skills and no education then your labor is less valuable to an employer.

 

[SwimExpert]

That wasn't what I said at all.

 

[Redfish]

1% of working americans make minimum wage-------------this is much ado about nothing. But the dems think it will rally their base----------it won't.

So if only 1% of the country is in a group, then we should just ignore them?

No one is doing their lifetime work on minimum wage. Its mostly teens working part time to make walking around money. Minimum skill jobs like picking up trash do not pay minimum wage. Most fast food places pay more than minimum wage.

This is an issue that the libs have created to garner sympathy votes from more ignorant liberals.

 

[Redfish]

That wasn't what I said at all.

I know, but its what you should have said, because its the truth.

 

[zeke]

What the one doing the paying offers. What people like you, meaning someone that doesn't own another person's business, thinks a business owner should pay is irrelevant. If you think certain jobs are worth a certain amount, start a business in that field and pay your employees what you think they should pay.

So a person is only worth what someone offers them?

I don't necessarily agree.

If there aren't enough workers in a city or town, then a worker is worth more for their skill than when there's 25% unemployment? Are you paying for the skill or are you paying because there's a lack of supply?

Should, say, a disadvantaged person be taken advantage of, and work for less than it costs them to live? I'm talking like 40 hours a week.

How much should a company pay just to have a human being in a job in their company, even if they can't even read and write?

Also there are issues with laws which force to people to find jobs in order to get welfare, should they be forced to find jobs that don't pay enough money to live on?

Some might consider that having someone earning too little money is abuse.

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.

Your agreement isn't necessary for it to be so. If the person doing the paying thinks a job is worth a certain amount, that's what it's worth not some arbitrary amount you bleeding hearts think another person should pay.

A person should be paid based on the skills that person offers not simply because they exist. If the disadvantage a person has is the skill level they offer, the problem isn't with the person doing the paying but with the one offering low skills.

Only bleeding hearts think it's abuse. Those that live in reality pay based on skills not existence. However, if you think someone doesn't have enough, you're more than welcome to subsidize them with your own money. We both know you won't because that's not how the bleeding heart mentality works.

You want someone with low skills to have basic needs, take them to the store to buy their food, pay their medical bills, etc. but don't demand I do it your way.

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?

 

[SwimExpert]

That wasn't what I said at all.

I know, but its what you should have said, because its the truth.

No, it's not what I "should have" said. I "should have" said exactly what I did say. Competent performance at the negotiating table is what drives wages up. It doesn't matter how good you are at your job, or how hard you work. Nobody will pay you more than the lowest price you'll allow them to get away with paying you.

 

[zeke]

Competent performance on the job is what drives up wages, not government edict.

Actually, this isn't true, either. Competent performance at the negotiating table is what drives your wages up. Rarely will an employer pay you more than you'll require them to pay.

yes, supply and demand should set the price of labor. If you have skills and education then your labor is worth more because there are fewer people with your skill set. If you have minimum skills and no education then your labor is less valuable to an employer.

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.

 

[Conservative65]

What the one doing the paying offers. What people like you, meaning someone that doesn't own another person's business, thinks a business owner should pay is irrelevant. If you think certain jobs are worth a certain amount, start a business in that field and pay your employees what you think they should pay.

So a person is only worth what someone offers them?

I don't necessarily agree.

If there aren't enough workers in a city or town, then a worker is worth more for their skill than when there's 25% unemployment? Are you paying for the skill or are you paying because there's a lack of supply?

Should, say, a disadvantaged person be taken advantage of, and work for less than it costs them to live? I'm talking like 40 hours a week.

How much should a company pay just to have a human being in a job in their company, even if they can't even read and write?

Also there are issues with laws which force to people to find jobs in order to get welfare, should they be forced to find jobs that don't pay enough money to live on?

Some might consider that having someone earning too little money is abuse.

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.

Your agreement isn't necessary for it to be so. If the person doing the paying thinks a job is worth a certain amount, that's what it's worth not some arbitrary amount you bleeding hearts think another person should pay.

A person should be paid based on the skills that person offers not simply because they exist. If the disadvantage a person has is the skill level they offer, the problem isn't with the person doing the paying but with the one offering low skills.

Only bleeding hearts think it's abuse. Those that live in reality pay based on skills not existence. However, if you think someone doesn't have enough, you're more than welcome to subsidize them with your own money. We both know you won't because that's not how the bleeding heart mentality works.

You want someone with low skills to have basic needs, take them to the store to buy their food, pay their medical bills, etc. but don't demand I do it your way.

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?

My tax dollars are being taken to support some low skilled, equivalently paid worker and that should stop now. Someone isn't poorly paid if the skills they offer and the wage the get are equal.

Since they are, and I already knew it, it's just another example of some unskilled retard getting something else they didn't earn thinking it's owed to them. Bet you're one of them.

 

[Redfish]

That wasn't what I said at all.

I know, but its what you should have said, because its the truth.

No, it's not what I "should have" said. I "should have" said exactly what I did say. Competent performance at the negotiating table is what drives wages up. It doesn't matter how good you are at your job, or how hard you work. Nobody will pay you more than the lowest price you'll allow them to get away with paying you.

OK, if an employer does not offer what you think you are worth, then don't accept the job, OR go get some skills or education that will make you more valuable as an employee.

the truth is that there are very few jobs where you can negotiate your starting pay. That is limited to the upper level jobs where you have some special talents or experience that you can offer.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

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?

 

[Redfish]

Competent performance on the job is what drives up wages, not government edict.

Actually, this isn't true, either. Competent performance at the negotiating table is what drives your wages up. Rarely will an employer pay you more than you'll require them to pay.

yes, supply and demand should set the price of labor. If you have skills and education then your labor is worth more because there are fewer people with your skill set. If you have minimum skills and no education then your labor is less valuable to an employer.

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.

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.

 

[frigidweirdo]

What the one doing the paying offers. What people like you, meaning someone that doesn't own another person's business, thinks a business owner should pay is irrelevant. If you think certain jobs are worth a certain amount, start a business in that field and pay your employees what you think they should pay.

So a person is only worth what someone offers them?

I don't necessarily agree.

If there aren't enough workers in a city or town, then a worker is worth more for their skill than when there's 25% unemployment? Are you paying for the skill or are you paying because there's a lack of supply?

Should, say, a disadvantaged person be taken advantage of, and work for less than it costs them to live? I'm talking like 40 hours a week.

How much should a company pay just to have a human being in a job in their company, even if they can't even read and write?

Also there are issues with laws which force to people to find jobs in order to get welfare, should they be forced to find jobs that don't pay enough money to live on?

Some might consider that having someone earning too little money is abuse.

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.

Your agreement isn't necessary for it to be so. If the person doing the paying thinks a job is worth a certain amount, that's what it's worth not some arbitrary amount you bleeding hearts think another person should pay.

A person should be paid based on the skills that person offers not simply because they exist. If the disadvantage a person has is the skill level they offer, the problem isn't with the person doing the paying but with the one offering low skills.

Only bleeding hearts think it's abuse. Those that live in reality pay based on skills not existence. However, if you think someone doesn't have enough, you're more than welcome to subsidize them with your own money. We both know you won't because that's not how the bleeding heart mentality works.

You want someone with low skills to have basic needs, take them to the store to buy their food, pay their medical bills, etc. but don't demand I do it your way.

And who would pay what they think someone is worth? No one pays what they think another is worth unless they're at the higher end of being worth something. They pay as little as they can for what they've got. People go for jobs where the wage structure is already in place most of the time.

You keep talking about bleeding hearts, but I have a feeling you don't know what necessarily goes on in minimum wage type jobs.

Even with a minimum wage, an employer can decide to not employ someone because they're not worth it, they can just make do with what they have.

Are you not being bleeding heart about these poor business people who can't afford to pay pittance to their workers?

 

[Redfish]

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?

Rock is a comedian, comedians says things to get laughs.

fast food outlets around here are all paying more than minimum wage because no one will work for minimum wage. Thats the way it works. if you don't like the pay, don't take the job, then the employer will have to offer a higher wage.

we don't need the govt involved in it.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

What the one doing the paying offers. What people like you, meaning someone that doesn't own another person's business, thinks a business owner should pay is irrelevant. If you think certain jobs are worth a certain amount, start a business in that field and pay your employees what you think they should pay.

So a person is only worth what someone offers them?

I don't necessarily agree.

If there aren't enough workers in a city or town, then a worker is worth more for their skill than when there's 25% unemployment? Are you paying for the skill or are you paying because there's a lack of supply?

Should, say, a disadvantaged person be taken advantage of, and work for less than it costs them to live? I'm talking like 40 hours a week.

How much should a company pay just to have a human being in a job in their company, even if they can't even read and write?

Also there are issues with laws which force to people to find jobs in order to get welfare, should they be forced to find jobs that don't pay enough money to live on?

Some might consider that having someone earning too little money is abuse.

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.

Your agreement isn't necessary for it to be so. If the person doing the paying thinks a job is worth a certain amount, that's what it's worth not some arbitrary amount you bleeding hearts think another person should pay.

A person should be paid based on the skills that person offers not simply because they exist. If the disadvantage a person has is the skill level they offer, the problem isn't with the person doing the paying but with the one offering low skills.

Only bleeding hearts think it's abuse. Those that live in reality pay based on skills not existence. However, if you think someone doesn't have enough, you're more than welcome to subsidize them with your own money. We both know you won't because that's not how the bleeding heart mentality works.

You want someone with low skills to have basic needs, take them to the store to buy their food, pay their medical bills, etc. but don't demand I do it your way.

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?

My tax dollars are being taken to support some low skilled, equivalently paid worker and that should stop now. Someone isn't poorly paid if the skills they offer and the wage the get are equal.

Since they are, and I already knew it, it's just another example of some unskilled retard getting something else they didn't earn thinking it's owed to them. Bet you're one of them.

Walmart LOVES the minimum wage.

It allows them to defer their employees' need for more income to the U.S. taxpayer. That's YOU, baby.

Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance

""""Walmart’s low-wage workers cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance including food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing, according to a report published to coincide with Tax Day, April 15.
Americans for Tax Fairness, a coalition of 400 national and state-level progressive groups, made this estimate using data from a 2013 study by Democratic Staff of the U.S. Committee on Education and the Workforce.
“The study estimated the cost to Wisconsin’s taxpayers of Walmart’s low wages and benefits, which often force workers to rely on various public assistance programs,” reads the report, available in full here.
“It found that a single Walmart Supercenter cost taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.75 million per year, or between $3,015 and $5,815 on average for each of 300 workers.”

From Forbes:
Report Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers 6.2 Billion In Public Assistance - Forbes

 

[Redfish]

What the one doing the paying offers. What people like you, meaning someone that doesn't own another person's business, thinks a business owner should pay is irrelevant. If you think certain jobs are worth a certain amount, start a business in that field and pay your employees what you think they should pay.

So a person is only worth what someone offers them?

I don't necessarily agree.

If there aren't enough workers in a city or town, then a worker is worth more for their skill than when there's 25% unemployment? Are you paying for the skill or are you paying because there's a lack of supply?

Should, say, a disadvantaged person be taken advantage of, and work for less than it costs them to live? I'm talking like 40 hours a week.

How much should a company pay just to have a human being in a job in their company, even if they can't even read and write?

Also there are issues with laws which force to people to find jobs in order to get welfare, should they be forced to find jobs that don't pay enough money to live on?

Some might consider that having someone earning too little money is abuse.

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.

Your agreement isn't necessary for it to be so. If the person doing the paying thinks a job is worth a certain amount, that's what it's worth not some arbitrary amount you bleeding hearts think another person should pay.

A person should be paid based on the skills that person offers not simply because they exist. If the disadvantage a person has is the skill level they offer, the problem isn't with the person doing the paying but with the one offering low skills.

Only bleeding hearts think it's abuse. Those that live in reality pay based on skills not existence. However, if you think someone doesn't have enough, you're more than welcome to subsidize them with your own money. We both know you won't because that's not how the bleeding heart mentality works.

You want someone with low skills to have basic needs, take them to the store to buy their food, pay their medical bills, etc. but don't demand I do it your way.

And who would pay what they think someone is worth? No one pays what they think another is worth unless they're at the higher end of being worth something. They pay as little as they can for what they've got. People go for jobs where the wage structure is already in place most of the time.

You keep talking about bleeding hearts, but I have a feeling you don't know what necessarily goes on in minimum wage type jobs.

Aw, cry me a river, idiot. were your feeeeeeeeeeeeeeelings hurt by some evil employer who actually expected you to give 40 hours work for 40 hours pay?

 

[SwimExpert]

OK, if an employer does not offer what you think you are worth, then don't accept the job, OR go get some skills or education that will make you more valuable as an employee.

the truth is that there are very few jobs where you can negotiate your starting pay. That is limited to the upper level jobs where you have some special talents or experience that you can offer.

Wow, you're a fucking idiot. You seriously think there are "few" jobs where you can negotiate your pay? That's dead wrong. You must be one of those low skilled workers yourself, because you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. I was negotiating my pay at 16 years old just to be a summer lifeguard. I've helped guide people on how to negotiate themselves better starting wages and/or raises for fast food jobs. Just because you can't negotiate your pay does not mean everyone else can't.