Scott Walker: "Min. wage serves no purpose"

[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.

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

OH, here we go with the Walmart bullshit.

Is anyone forced to work at Walmart? Is anyone forced to shop at Walmart?

Get a life, grow the fuck up, stop the whining.

 

[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?

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.

Tell you what. I will bet you EVERYTHING you've got that I am not. I mean EVERYTHING, Whether it's worth anything or not. Kinda like your opinion. Not worth much. But I will still take your bet. You game?

If you won't do that, I suggest you shut the fuck up about wanting to bet. I would own you.

 

[dblack]

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.

Exactly. But I wonder why some people think that's preferable to a low wage.

 

[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?

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.

I don't care if he's a comedian, a dentist or a guy washing dishes in a diner. It's the truth. See my post about Walmart and then sit down and STFU....YOU are compensating for large corporations who don't want to pay their workers a decent wage. You and everyone on this board.

 

[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.

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?

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

Taxpayers should not be supporting someone because their skill level is low and they can't make it because of what skills they offer. Walmart isn't writing the legislation allowing it to happen. Bleeding heart Liberals are. Just another example of Liberals doing something then blaming someone else that has no control over the law that does it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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?

Would I expect to be paid 40 hours wages for 40 hours work? FLUFF YES I damn well would. Other than that I'm not sure what your point is.

 

[zeke]

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

OH, here we go with the Walmart bullshit.

Is anyone forced to work at Walmart? Is anyone forced to shop at Walmart?

Get a life, grow the fuck up, stop the whining.

Come on red. What's bullshit about Walmart workers receiving public assistance. It's the facts asshole. Why you got a problem with facts? Wait wait......I know,. you a Republican.

 

[Redfish]

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.

Well thats just great. How wonderful for you.

As to negotiating ones pay----in my last job before retiring I negotiated an employment contract that included a very nice base pay, stock options and grants, deferred income, and a DBP for retirement. I was able to do that because I had a very special set of experience and education that the employer was willing to pay a lot of money for. So don't give me your sob story about your teenage lifeguard job. Yeah, you may have "negotiated" $5/hr when he offered $4/hr. Wow, what a guy.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

OH, here we go with the Walmart bullshit.

Is anyone forced to work at Walmart? Is anyone forced to shop at Walmart?

Get a life, grow the fuck up, stop the whining.

No, the could go on welfare instead. I'm assuming a lot of people don't have much choice right now in where they work. It's either work here or take welfare. Then the right will kick up a fuss about taking welfare.

 

[SwimExpert]

Walmart isn't writing the legislation allowing it to happen.

No, but Walmart is actively engaged in soaking up the tax money for their benefit. They actively encourage their employees to go onto the government dole, and they lobby against reductions in welfare benefits. Not just so the taxpayers can keep subsidizing their payroll, but because welfare money ends being a pretty decent slice of their profits. This is why I hate Walmart.

What these liberal fools don't understand is that if they hate Walmart so much too, they can do something about it. They can stop shopping there.

 

[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.

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?

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

Taxpayers should not be supporting someone because their skill level is low and they can't make it because of what skills they offer. Walmart isn't writing the legislation allowing it to happen. Bleeding heart Liberals are. Just another example of Liberals doing something then blaming someone else that has no control over the law that does it.

Walmart don't have to write the legislation to qualify for assistance.

Walmart just has to help make sure that a rise in minimum wage is something that doesn't happen.
And when the Walmarts of the world do that and their workers can't feed their families, those same workers will try and find help.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Exactly. But I wonder why some people think that's preferable to a low wage.

Preferable? In most cases neither is preferable. I'm not in favor of a large minimum wage, but one that at least gives workers a chance.

 

[Redfish]

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

OH, here we go with the Walmart bullshit.

Is anyone forced to work at Walmart? Is anyone forced to shop at Walmart?

Get a life, grow the fuck up, stop the whining.

Come on red. What's bullshit about Walmart workers receiving public assistance. It's the facts asshole. Why you got a problem with facts? Wait wait......I know,. you a Republican.

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

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

 

[The Rabbi]

3% OF THE WORK FORCE GET MINIMUM WAGE YET AN INCREASE OF A DOLLAR OR TWO WOULD CAUSE EVERYTHING TO RISE IN PRICES.

Do you understand how fucking stupid that make the MW haters sound. 3% of the lowest paid workers have all this tremendous monetary/pricing power. The ability to change the economy you all say.

Fucking that's crazy. Give the poor people a raise.

Poor Zeke. Dumb as a rock.
Hey, Zeke, why do you think unions constatntly push for higher min wage? You think it's because they represent "the working man"?? ROFL!

You really are a silly fucking rabbit.

SO go ahead rabbit, why do unions push for higher minimum wage?
Maybe they want to expand the numbers of union members. I wish they could. I wish we had the same amount of union representation that we had in the 50ties and 60ties. Back when the middle class was succeeding, growing, prospering and driving the consumer economy.


Of course, you being the white piece of trash you are have never enjoyed prosperity at any level. You a bankrupt fuck. If not actually, certainly morally.

Yeah, Zeke. That's wrong. How would union membership increase by raising min wage? It wont.
Guess again. Or maybe go do some research.

The ONLY interest that a union has in minimum wage is as it relates to the prevailing wage laws in some states. Union wages based upon a percentage above minimum wage will rise automatically (without the expense of contract negotiations) as minimum wage rises.

Again, the unions only purpose is to get theirs and fuck everyone else.

You mean the unions act like the ultra wealthy? Fuck everyone else, I got mine. Yea I agree. Good for one group is good for another.

But what you assholes don't understand is that I support what the union does. If the union can pull wages up the scale like they used to be able to do, then I am all for that. Because the fucking CEOs that you assholes love sure as fuck are not interested in raising wages.

Yeah, Zeke. Unions have done so well they wrecked every industry they were involved in and saw their membership plummet.
Only a retard like you could applaud that as success.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Splain it to us Rabbi
What economic force causes wages to go up if you drop minimum wage?

Supply and demand.
I could explain it but it's like explaining astrophysics to a hamster.

Good God Rabbi

Supply and Demand is the best you could come up with? How does Supply and Demand do anything but decrease wages below existing minimum wage levels?

You really aren't too good at math are ya?

See, I knew you wouldn't understand it.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Exactly. But I wonder why some people think that's preferable to a low wage.

Preferable? In most cases neither is preferable. I'm not in favor of a large minimum wage, but one that at least gives workers a chance.

^^Doesn't understand the word "preferable."

 

[bripat9643]

People should be paid a wage that they can live on

Even if that wage is above what their skills are worth?

How much is a person's skill worth?

The laws of supply and demand determine that.

 

[Redfish]

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.

Exactly. But I wonder why some people think that's preferable to a low wage.

Preferable? In most cases neither is preferable. I'm not in favor of a large minimum wage, but one that at least gives workers a chance.

and how much is that? is it the same in New york city as in Fargo ND? is it the same for a single person and a person with 4 kids? How much is required to "give someone a chance" in all the different places and all the different family situations? like most liberals, you never think things through, you just react emotionally.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

You fail to define any of those things or explain why people should deserve any of it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Poor Zeke. Dumb as a rock.
Hey, Zeke, why do you think unions constatntly push for higher min wage? You think it's because they represent "the working man"?? ROFL!

You really are a silly fucking rabbit.

SO go ahead rabbit, why do unions push for higher minimum wage?
Maybe they want to expand the numbers of union members. I wish they could. I wish we had the same amount of union representation that we had in the 50ties and 60ties. Back when the middle class was succeeding, growing, prospering and driving the consumer economy.


Of course, you being the white piece of trash you are have never enjoyed prosperity at any level. You a bankrupt fuck. If not actually, certainly morally.

Yeah, Zeke. That's wrong. How would union membership increase by raising min wage? It wont.
Guess again. Or maybe go do some research.

The ONLY interest that a union has in minimum wage is as it relates to the prevailing wage laws in some states. Union wages based upon a percentage above minimum wage will rise automatically (without the expense of contract negotiations) as minimum wage rises.

Again, the unions only purpose is to get theirs and fuck everyone else.

You mean the unions act like the ultra wealthy? Fuck everyone else, I got mine. Yea I agree. Good for one group is good for another.

But what you assholes don't understand is that I support what the union does. If the union can pull wages up the scale like they used to be able to do, then I am all for that. Because the fucking CEOs that you assholes love sure as fuck are not interested in raising wages.

Yeah, Zeke. Unions have done so well they wrecked every industry they were involved in and saw their membership plummet.
Only a retard like you could applaud that as success.

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.