Scott Walker: "Min. wage serves no purpose"

[Moneyman]

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?

 

[HUGGY]

I doubt anyone that works for minimum wages would say that the minimum wage serves no purpose.

Anyone that makes more than minimum wage is in no position to suggest what purpose MW has on the worker that depends on minimum wage.

 

[Politico]

No it does not serve a purpose to a guy whose company bilked the taxpayers out of millions of dollars.

 

[The Rabbi]

It serves a purpose. It allows politicians to give people a "raise" at someone else's expense and get re-elected.
What would happen if we just eliminated the minimum wage today? You think every employer would suddenly start paying $2/hr?

 

[Meathead]

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?

Employers are not always allowed to pay what the market dictates. If they were, there would be no minimum wage.

I despair of US public education.

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

Employers are not always allowed to pay what the market dictates. If they were, there would be no minimum wage.

I despair of US public education.

Other than min wage jobs, when are employers not allowed to pay what the market dictates?

 

[Meathead]

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?

Employers are not always allowed to pay what the market dictates. If they were, there would be no minimum wage.

I despair of US public education.

Other than min wage jobs, when are employers not allowed to pay what the market dictates?

Employees are not always allowed..., I wrote.

 

[Conservative65]

I doubt anyone that works for minimum wages would say that the minimum wage serves no purpose.

Anyone that makes more than minimum wage is in no position to suggest what purpose MW has on the worker that depends on minimum wage.

I make well above the minimum and I do so for one reason. If the only job someone has he skills to do pays the minimum, the problem is with them not the one doing the paying. Since those being forced to pay someone with minimum skills more than those skills are worth on the open market in many cases and labor costs affect what the rest of us that make above it pay, we very much have a say.

Someone on minimum wage that has the skills to only make that wage is the problem.

 

[Conservative65]

No it does not serve a purpose to a guy whose company bilked the taxpayers out of millions of dollars.

If the person whose skills only allow them to work a minimum wage job gets any sort of taxpayer funded handout, they, not their employer, are bilking the taxpayers. It's not the employer paying someone at a wage their skills are worth that is the problem. It's the one who offers only skills that make that low amount.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The biggest fallacy about focusing on the Minimum Wage is ignoring the consequences of NOT paying anyone a living wage for working 8 hours a day.

As taxpayers we subsidize the housing and healthcare of those making minimum wages. That is Corporate Welfare.

No business deserves to have the benefit of taxpayer subsidized employees.

So until we stop blaming the victims and look at this as what it really is in reality, Corporate Welfare, we will never resolve the problem.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Scott Walker: "Min. wage serves no purpose"

Walker is wrong.

Minimum Wage certainly does serve a purpose. Three, actually.

1.) It transfers money from workers whose work pays for the wage they are receiving, to workers whose work does not pay for the wage they are receiving. In other words, it implements one of the most important facets of socialism.

2.) It eliminates low-wage jobs (that is, jobs that bring in less revenue than the worker is paid) from the marketplace, thus making it much more difficult for beginners to get a start and build up their experience. This expands welfare roles, makes families poorer, and makes more people dependent on government coercion to live.

3.) It boosts wages for ALL workers in unions whose wage scales are based on the minimum wage. When the Min Wage goes up, ALL of them get raises. This makes #2 above, even more extensive.

Minimum Wage does serve a purpose... and it is uniformly bad for the country.

 

[Little-Acorn]

the consequences of NOT paying anyone a living wage for working 8 hours a day.

You mean, "the consequences of a worker trying to support himself (and possibly a family) by doing only work that does not create the revenue it takes to pay for it", don't you?

 

[Derideo_Te]

the consequences of NOT paying anyone a living wage for working 8 hours a day.

You mean, "the consequences of a worker trying to support himself (and possibly a family) by doing only work that does not create the revenue it takes to pay for it", don't you?

Blaming the victim does not resolve the problem.

Corporate Welfare is the problem.

Give me sound fiscal reasons why any corporation is entitled to the benefits of subsidized employees. Your desire for a cheap Big Mac is not a sound fiscal reason.

 

[Little-Acorn]

the consequences of NOT paying anyone a living wage for working 8 hours a day.

You mean, "the consequences of a worker trying to support himself (and possibly a family) by doing only work that does not create the revenue it takes to pay for it", don't you?

Blaming the victim does not resolve the problem.

Corporate Welfare is the problem.

Give me sound fiscal reasons why any corporation is entitled to the benefits of subsidized employees. Your desire for a cheap Big Mac is not a sound fiscal reason.

As I thought, you can't answer the question... or you don't dare.

Get back to me when you are ready to address reality.

 

[Mustang]

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?

I'm going to resist my initial urge to mention child labor laws or laws related to the safety of workers in the workplace that were brought into existence simply because of the rampant abuse that existed prior to the laws up to and including the needless deaths of men, women, and children in workplaces that were unsafe simply because employers viewed it as an unnecessary cost.

Instead, I'll mention the 40 hour work week, paid vacations, worker-sponsored health care, pensions and other benefits that probably never would have come into being in the first place if it was not for labor unions and collective bargaining.

Do those benefits serve a purpose? Obviously, many people would say yes. Some people would say no. Now, let's just say for the sake of argument that whatever rules, regulations, laws, and other bargaining agreements (collective or personal) that are currently in place as far as these benefits are concerned were suddenly declared null and void if one party (or both parties) wanted to get out of any legal obligation to abide by the agreements. Does anyone think for a minute that EVERYONE would suddenly be without those benefits? Of course not. In my opinion, one of two things would happen. Either the decisions makers would continue to receive these benefits as before, OR their pay would increase commensurate in order to allow them to go out and buy their own healthcare policies (as an example) with a fraction of the money saved by cutting the benefits of everyone else. Meanwhile, the vast majority of current recipients of those benefits would find themselves with either significantly reduced benefits or no benefits at all?

And do you know what else would happen? Conservatives would hail the decision as being an example of freedom even as American businesses would be declaring that the additional savings made their businesses more profitable than ever. But what would happen to that savings? Would it be reinvested by the company and or used to pay down their debt or some other business-related purpose? Or would it simply find it's way into the pockets of the mangers and stock holders of the companies even as it's taken out of general circulation within the economy as a whole?

 

[Clementine]

It serves a purpose. It allows politicians to give people a "raise" at someone else's expense and get re-elected.
What would happen if we just eliminated the minimum wage today? You think every employer would suddenly start paying $2/hr?

We'd go back to people earning raises. If we raise minimum wage to $10, people will still get welfare since that isn't enough with the rising costs of everything. If the real purpose of raising it is so people can earn a living wage, then they better raise it to about $25. Of course, prices will get even higher, so eventually that won't be a living wage.

I know so many who started at minimum wage and now live in nice homes and drive nice vehicles. Is there anyone here who doesn't understand how that happened? They did it without government intervening on their behalf. Many worked their way up from minimum to nice salaries, but yet we have the left claiming that people with large families work at minimum wage jobs for years with no raises. And they blame the companies. I don't know why a person would choose to have a large family that they can't support.

Of course, so many small businesses have been killed due to liberal policies and Obamacare. They kill the middle class jobs and then bitch because people have to live off minimum wage jobs. Perhaps if they hadn't kicked the ladder out from under the people, we'd still see workers moving up.

 

[percysunshine]

.

The real minimum wage is 'zero'. No job, no wage.

Welcome to Obamanomics.

.

 

[Derideo_Te]

the consequences of NOT paying anyone a living wage for working 8 hours a day.

You mean, "the consequences of a worker trying to support himself (and possibly a family) by doing only work that does not create the revenue it takes to pay for it", don't you?

Blaming the victim does not resolve the problem.

Corporate Welfare is the problem.

Give me sound fiscal reasons why any corporation is entitled to the benefits of subsidized employees. Your desire for a cheap Big Mac is not a sound fiscal reason.

As I thought, you can't answer the question... or you don't dare.

Get back to me when you are ready to address reality.

You cannot refute the Corporate Welfare argument ergo you have conceded that it stands uncontested. Run along now and have a nice day.

 

[rightwinger]

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

“I want jobs that pay two or three times the minimum wage,” Walker said, adding, “The way you do that is not by (setting) an arbitrary amount by the state.”
Does that mean the first-term Republican governor opposes a minimum wage on principle?

During Tuesday's meeting with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel'sEditorial Board, Walker was asked to clarify his position. He didn't hesitate.

“I'm not going to repeal it,” Walker said. “But I don't think it serves a purpose because we're debating then about what the lowest levels are at. I want people to make, like I said the other night, two or three times that.”

Walker said he wants to help people get the skills they need to find careers that pay many times the current minimum wage, which is $7.25 an hour.

“The jobs I focus on, the programs we put in place, the training we put in place is not for people to get minimum wage jobs,” he said.

Liberal groups and labor organizations immediately went on the attack, tearing into the governor for saying he doesn’t think the minimum wage “serves a purpose.”

First out of the box was American Bridge — a Democratic Super PAC — which had video of the quote posted before the Editorial Board had concluded.

Then Walker came under fire from his campaign foe, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mary Burke. She has said she wants to raise the minimum wage in three stages to $10.10 an hour.

“Well, I disagree with it entirely,” Burke told Journal Sentinel reporter Bill Glauber in response to Walker’s comment earlier in the day. “It's important that people who are working fulltime are able to support themselves without government assistance. That's just sort of common sense.”

She said that reducing the number of people on the public dole would reduce the state budget and improve the economy, adding that many business owners she knows supporting increasing the minimum wage.

“I want to make sure people are able to have the pride of having a full-time job and supporting themselves,” Burke said.

A number of liberal websites — such as Talking Points Memo, Huffington Post and Think Progress — jumped on Walker’s comment.

Finally, a top labor official tried to take the governor to task.

“For nearly a century, American workers have relied on minimum wage protections,” said Stephanie Bloomingdale, secretary-treasurer of the Wisconsin State AFL-CIO. “Now is not the time to take away these important laws,” she continued. “Now is the time to raise the minimum wage so that people who get up and go to work every day can have a decent standard of living.”

This is the second remark from the debate for which Walker has come under strong criticism.

In the first, the governor said, “We don’t have a jobs problem in this state. We have a work problem.”

Burke and other Democrats ripped the statement, suggesting he is ignoring the fact that Wisconsin trails other states in job growth.

Walker countered in a 30-second ad earlier this week.

He has said the statement at the debate concerned the so-called “skills gap,” the notion that good jobs in the state aren’t being filled because of a lack of trained workers.

“Mary Burke is distorting my comments on jobs,” Walker said in the commercial. “It’s no wonder. The tax-and-spend policies she supports drove out good-paying manufacturing jobs in Wisconsin.”

The two candidates for the state’s top office will square off again Friday, sparking a second round of debate — and TV ads — over what is meant and said.​

Link:
Scott Walker says he doesn t believe minimum wage serves a purpose - JSOnline

Does the min. wage serve a purpose or should companies be allowed to pay what the market dictates?

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

 

[SwimExpert]

Does the min. wage serve a purpose or should companies be allowed to pay what the market dictates?

Walker's problem is that he's viewing the issue in a temporal vacuum. We have to look at the issue across history and understand it in the context of its continually evolving function. The minimum wage serves a purpose, and has done so effectively for a long time. The issue in 21st century America is that the minimum wage is no longer an effective mechanism to achieve the purpose it's meant to achieve, and raising the minimum wage will have a negligible effect at best at successfully reaching the intended goal. The main reason for this is that the causes of income inequality no longer have anything to do with where the minimum wage is set. The causes of today's income inequality are distinct economic and social failings which generally sidestep the hard numbers of the minimum wage.

I support an entire shift in approach. Instead of raising the minimum wage, there should be a maximum wage, that ties CEO compensation to a more sustainable level compared to lowest tier employee compensation, in conjunction with an abolition of the minimum wage. But in order to really effect meaningful change, gotta get the illegals out of jobs that Americans should be filling.