Scott Walker: "Min. wage serves no purpose"

[Iceweasel]

Slavery being the ideal solution for any employer.

Perfect screen name. Slaves are owned. Employees are paid.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

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

No

So you don't believe in ANY regulation at all? No regulation about health and safety for example? No regulation on monopolies, no regulation of swindling people out of money etc etc?

A major free for all?

You're talking about two different things. Rules for safety are quite different than regulation of day to day functioning. Businesses shouldn't be able to do things to cheat people as that is illegal whether it's a business doing it or not. What a business pays it's employees, what benefits a business has to offer it's employees (i.e. - healthcare), and things like that should not be regulated. They are known factors when the person takes the job. If the person doesn't like what's offered, don't accept.

Slavery being the ideal solution for any employer.

Wrong.
How is it you manage to post the stupidest comments in the fewest words?

 

[Conservative65]

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

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

No

So you don't believe in ANY regulation at all? No regulation about health and safety for example? No regulation on monopolies, no regulation of swindling people out of money etc etc?

A major free for all?

You're talking about two different things. Rules for safety are quite different than regulation of day to day functioning. Businesses shouldn't be able to do things to cheat people as that is illegal whether it's a business doing it or not. What a business pays it's employees, what benefits a business has to offer it's employees (i.e. - healthcare), and things like that should not be regulated. They are known factors when the person takes the job. If the person doesn't like what's offered, don't accept.

Slavery being the ideal solution for any employer.

Someone getting a wage equivalent to their skills isn't being made a slave by their employer but by their own lack of skills.

Why should an employer pay more of a wage than the skills being offered are worth?

 

[Discombobulated]

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

No

So you don't believe in ANY regulation at all? No regulation about health and safety for example? No regulation on monopolies, no regulation of swindling people out of money etc etc?

A major free for all?

You're talking about two different things. Rules for safety are quite different than regulation of day to day functioning. Businesses shouldn't be able to do things to cheat people as that is illegal whether it's a business doing it or not. What a business pays it's employees, what benefits a business has to offer it's employees (i.e. - healthcare), and things like that should not be regulated. They are known factors when the person takes the job. If the person doesn't like what's offered, don't accept.

Slavery being the ideal solution for any employer.

Someone getting a wage equivalent to their skills isn't being made a slave by their employer but by their own lack of skills.

Why should an employer pay more of a wage than the skills being offered are worth?

Following your alleged logic paying your employees nothing at all would have to be the ultimate goal.

 

[Discombobulated]

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

No

So you don't believe in ANY regulation at all? No regulation about health and safety for example? No regulation on monopolies, no regulation of swindling people out of money etc etc?

A major free for all?

You're talking about two different things. Rules for safety are quite different than regulation of day to day functioning. Businesses shouldn't be able to do things to cheat people as that is illegal whether it's a business doing it or not. What a business pays it's employees, what benefits a business has to offer it's employees (i.e. - healthcare), and things like that should not be regulated. They are known factors when the person takes the job. If the person doesn't like what's offered, don't accept.

Slavery being the ideal solution for any employer.

Wrong.
How is it you manage to post the stupidest comments in the fewest words?

If only I had your talent for droning on endlessly with mindless nonsense.

 

[Conservative65]

No

So you don't believe in ANY regulation at all? No regulation about health and safety for example? No regulation on monopolies, no regulation of swindling people out of money etc etc?

A major free for all?

You're talking about two different things. Rules for safety are quite different than regulation of day to day functioning. Businesses shouldn't be able to do things to cheat people as that is illegal whether it's a business doing it or not. What a business pays it's employees, what benefits a business has to offer it's employees (i.e. - healthcare), and things like that should not be regulated. They are known factors when the person takes the job. If the person doesn't like what's offered, don't accept.

Slavery being the ideal solution for any employer.

Someone getting a wage equivalent to their skills isn't being made a slave by their employer but by their own lack of skills.

Why should an employer pay more of a wage than the skills being offered are worth?

Following your alleged logic paying your employees nothing at all would have to be the ultimate goal.

So you won't answer the question. Not surprised.

My logic is that it's an employer/employee decision to offer/accept a wage not someone like you who isn't doing the paying or doesn't own the company. No one is saying a worker shouldn't get paid. However, what you think someone working for a business you don't own gets carries zero weight.

 

[Discombobulated]

So you don't believe in ANY regulation at all? No regulation about health and safety for example? No regulation on monopolies, no regulation of swindling people out of money etc etc?

A major free for all?

You're talking about two different things. Rules for safety are quite different than regulation of day to day functioning. Businesses shouldn't be able to do things to cheat people as that is illegal whether it's a business doing it or not. What a business pays it's employees, what benefits a business has to offer it's employees (i.e. - healthcare), and things like that should not be regulated. They are known factors when the person takes the job. If the person doesn't like what's offered, don't accept.

Slavery being the ideal solution for any employer.

Someone getting a wage equivalent to their skills isn't being made a slave by their employer but by their own lack of skills.

Why should an employer pay more of a wage than the skills being offered are worth?

Following your alleged logic paying your employees nothing at all would have to be the ultimate goal.

So you won't answer the question. Not surprised.

My logic is that it's an employer/employee decision to offer/accept a wage not someone like you who isn't doing the paying or doesn't own the company. No one is saying a worker shouldn't get paid. However, what you think someone working for a business you don't own gets carries zero weight.

Because we know we can rely on the good wishes of employers to determine a worker's true value.

 

[Conservative65]

You're talking about two different things. Rules for safety are quite different than regulation of day to day functioning. Businesses shouldn't be able to do things to cheat people as that is illegal whether it's a business doing it or not. What a business pays it's employees, what benefits a business has to offer it's employees (i.e. - healthcare), and things like that should not be regulated. They are known factors when the person takes the job. If the person doesn't like what's offered, don't accept.

Slavery being the ideal solution for any employer.

Someone getting a wage equivalent to their skills isn't being made a slave by their employer but by their own lack of skills.

Why should an employer pay more of a wage than the skills being offered are worth?

Following your alleged logic paying your employees nothing at all would have to be the ultimate goal.

So you won't answer the question. Not surprised.

My logic is that it's an employer/employee decision to offer/accept a wage not someone like you who isn't doing the paying or doesn't own the company. No one is saying a worker shouldn't get paid. However, what you think someone working for a business you don't own gets carries zero weight.

Because we know we can rely on the good wishes of employers to determine a worker's true value.

Yet you think we can rely on someone like you who isn't paying it to do so. I'd trust the one running the business to know the value of employees within that business over what some dickhead bleeding heart like you thinks.

 

[Iceweasel]

Because we know we can rely on the good wishes of employers to determine a worker's true value.

Often you can. But they have to sell their goods and services so the market plays a huge role. What's stopping you from opening a business and paying employees what they want?
Oh wait...you're just a mouth.

 

[Discombobulated]

Slavery being the ideal solution for any employer.

Someone getting a wage equivalent to their skills isn't being made a slave by their employer but by their own lack of skills.

Why should an employer pay more of a wage than the skills being offered are worth?

Following your alleged logic paying your employees nothing at all would have to be the ultimate goal.

So you won't answer the question. Not surprised.

My logic is that it's an employer/employee decision to offer/accept a wage not someone like you who isn't doing the paying or doesn't own the company. No one is saying a worker shouldn't get paid. However, what you think someone working for a business you don't own gets carries zero weight.

Because we know we can rely on the good wishes of employers to determine a worker's true value.

Yet you think we can rely on someone like you who isn't paying it to do so. I'd trust the one running the business to know the value of employees within that business over what some dickhead bleeding heart like you thinks.

I'd trust you to use your employees for years until they ask for raise or get close to retirement age......then it's time for new hires.

 

[Conservative65]

Someone getting a wage equivalent to their skills isn't being made a slave by their employer but by their own lack of skills.

Why should an employer pay more of a wage than the skills being offered are worth?

Following your alleged logic paying your employees nothing at all would have to be the ultimate goal.

So you won't answer the question. Not surprised.

My logic is that it's an employer/employee decision to offer/accept a wage not someone like you who isn't doing the paying or doesn't own the company. No one is saying a worker shouldn't get paid. However, what you think someone working for a business you don't own gets carries zero weight.

Because we know we can rely on the good wishes of employers to determine a worker's true value.

Yet you think we can rely on someone like you who isn't paying it to do so. I'd trust the one running the business to know the value of employees within that business over what some dickhead bleeding heart like you thinks.

I'd trust you to use your employees for years until they ask for raise or get close to retirement age......then it's time for new hires.

I'd trust you to . . Wait. I wouldn't trust your dumbass to shovel shit and get it right.

 

[Discombobulated]

Following your alleged logic paying your employees nothing at all would have to be the ultimate goal.

So you won't answer the question. Not surprised.

My logic is that it's an employer/employee decision to offer/accept a wage not someone like you who isn't doing the paying or doesn't own the company. No one is saying a worker shouldn't get paid. However, what you think someone working for a business you don't own gets carries zero weight.

Because we know we can rely on the good wishes of employers to determine a worker's true value.

Yet you think we can rely on someone like you who isn't paying it to do so. I'd trust the one running the business to know the value of employees within that business over what some dickhead bleeding heart like you thinks.

I'd trust you to use your employees for years until they ask for raise or get close to retirement age......then it's time for new hires.

I'd trust you to . . Wait. I wouldn't trust your dumbass to shovel shit and get it right.

That would be appropriate, your employees could shovel what you pay them.

 

[bripat9643]

When a bank uses up people's savings and then goes bankrupt and did so because of a complete lack of regulation, doesn't this mean that "supply and demand is out of whack"?

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

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

No

So you don't believe in ANY regulation at all? No regulation about health and safety for example? No regulation on monopolies, no regulation of swindling people out of money etc etc?

A major free for all?

Laws against fraud are not regulations. They are criminal law. Swindling and fraud have always been against the law, even before the SEC was created. As for the rest, yes, I oppose all such regulations.

 

[Conservative65]

When a bank uses up people's savings and then goes bankrupt and did so because of a complete lack of regulation, doesn't this mean that "supply and demand is out of whack"?

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

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

No

So you don't believe in ANY regulation at all? No regulation about health and safety for example? No regulation on monopolies, no regulation of swindling people out of money etc etc?

A major free for all?

Laws against fraud are not regulations. They are criminal law. Swindling and fraud have always been against the law, even before the SEC was created. As for the rest, yes, I oppose all such regulations.

That's something too many don't understand.

 

[paulitician]

Whiny Communists/Progressives over-played their hand. Everything's backfiring on them. Walker's turned out to be a strong successful leader. He's done a good job. The whiner Public School Teachers made him the strong leader he now is.

Most people are completely sick of hearing Public School Teachers whining about how awful they're supposedly being treated. The Taxpayers don't want to hear it anymore. Their constant hysterical whining truly has backfired on them.

 

[kaz]

I get a kick out of guys like you, you live off of capitalism while propagandizing how evil it is.

I started a company and funded it. People come to work for me and I ... pay them ... You don't think I'm exploiting them?

I'm curious without companies to work for or for government to plunder how the Marxists think they would live exactly.

That's not exploitation especially if the person being offered what you pay ACCEPTS the wage.

They just don't grasp free markets in any way. Did your grocery store exploit you by selling you food lately? Did you exploit your lawn boy by hiring him to mow your lawn. They are idiots and Marxists. Free markets where we make our own choices to them is exploitation. They don't want to pay for what they consume.

 

[SwimExpert]

Slaves are owned. Employees are paid.

That's not true. You are thinking of chattel slavery. That is where ownership of the person, equivalent to owning a chair or a book which can be bought, sold, traded, or destroyed occurs. Slavery is alive and well in the modern world, but chattel slavery is the least common form. The primary form of slavery is debt bondage, whereby a person's service and labor are used to pay a debt. Hence biblical passages which refer to giving a child into slavery to a debtor to pay a debt. In modern times, debt bondage slavery is considered to be a condition where the labor or service provided by the indentured individual is either not proscribed to have a meaningful or evident end point, is not credited toward the outstanding debt, or is not credited according to a fair and reasonable value for their work.

Slavery, in its broadest sense, is any condition in which a person's individual freedom is restricted such that the person is obliged to provide labor or services. Under this broad category, imprisoned criminals who are required to do work could be considered slaves, however this is not a traditionally recognized form of slavery. More narrow views can include additional criteria, but often more nuanced definitions still cause difficulty. For example, by including a caveat to identify slavery as any condition in which a person's individual freedom is restricted without due process of the law we could differentiate between slavery and forced labor associated with penal confinement. This, nonetheless, would technically exclude any form of legalized slavery. We could alternately eliminate the due process qualifier and include a qualifier to say that another person must be doing the restricting. But this would technically preempt cases where groups of people, companies, or governments enslave people.

While "obliged to provide labor or services" may often equate to "free" labor (that is, a person who is not paid), this is not necessarily the case. Serfdom slavery typically involved compensation in the way of housing, and provision of land that could be used to produce agricultural goods, with the serf often keeping the majority of the product, owing only a small portion to their master. A modern day expression of "paid" slavery is often found in Qatar, and sadly in a few rare unscrupulous dark corners of the US, occurs when an immigrant worker is effectively held captive by an employer who confiscates their passport and other identification documents with the goal to oblige the individual to work for the employer under whatever circumstances the employer wishes to impose. These individuals are paid, though typically are paid very poorly.

 

[Iceweasel]

Slaves are owned. Employees are paid.

That's not true. You are thinking of chattel slavery. That is where ownership of the person, equivalent to owning a chair or a book which can be bought, sold, traded, or destroyed occurs. Slavery is alive and well in the modern world, but chattel slavery is the least common form. The primary form of slavery is debt bondage, whereby a person's service and labor are used to pay a debt. Hence biblical passages which refer to giving a child into slavery to a debtor to pay a debt.

That's called a bond slave. And some stayed on if they liked the arrangement. But they were still owned.

In modern times, debt bondage slavery is considered to be a condition where the labor or service provided by the indentured individual is either not proscribed to have a meaningful or evident end point, is not credited toward the outstanding debt, or is not credited according to a fair and reasonable value for their work.

Now you are making shit up. You are not authorized to change the English language to suit your agenda, whatever it is. When you use words incorrectly you will be seen what we call "idiots".

Slavery, in its broadest sense, is any condition in which a person's individual freedom is restricted such that the person is obliged to provide labor or services. Under this broad category, imprisoned criminals who are required to do work could be considered slaves, however this is not a traditionally recognized form of slavery. More narrow views can include additional criteria, but often more nuanced definitions still cause difficulty. For example, by including a caveat to identify slavery as any condition in which a person's individual freedom is restricted without due process of the law we could differentiate between slavery and forced labor associated with penal confinement. This, nonetheless, would technically exclude any form of legalized slavery. We could alternately eliminate the due process qualifier and include a qualifier to say that another person must be doing the restricting. But this would technically preempt cases where groups of people, companies, or governments enslave people.

While "obliged to provide labor or services" may often equate to "free" labor (that is, a person who is not paid), this is not necessarily the case. Serfdom slavery typically involved compensation in the way of housing, and provision of land that could be used to produce agricultural goods, with the serf often keeping the majority of the product, owing only a small portion to their master. A modern day expression of "paid" slavery is often found in Qatar, and sadly in a few rare unscrupulous dark corners of the US, occurs when an immigrant worker is effectively held captive by an employer who confiscates their passport and other identification documents with the goal to oblige the individual to work for the employer under whatever circumstances the employer wishes to impose. These individuals are paid, though typically are paid very poorly.

If they can be sold they are slaves. Slaves are property. The illegal is welcome to sneak back where he came from.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Big firms that don t pay the living wage - Yahoo Finance UK

"Tens of thousands of low paid workers will have a bit more in their pay packets from now on after the Living Wage was raised to £7.85 an hour in the UK and £9.15 in London."

The Wage, which is paid to 35,000 workers, is set by the Living Wage Foundation, an independent body, rather than by the Government.

It is calculated to cover the basic cost of living in the UK and employers choose to pay it on a voluntary basis. Researchers have found that 80% of employers paying the Living Wage believe it has boosted the quality of staff’s work and that absenteeism had dropped by a quarter."

 

[paulitician]

Walker's done a good job. He's turned into a strong capable leader. So who cares Communists/Progressives don't like him. He's not in there to only please Moocher whiners. He'd be a Democrat if that were the case. He can hold his head up. He's doing a good job.