Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Scott Walker Just Robbed Poor Workers Of $6,000" video.

TurdFurgeson571 That is all fine but in the end the people of WI wanted him so they voted for him. You may feel that they are being lied too but they are right now fine with their situation in WI thus they keep voting in WI. You don't live there so you have zero say in any of that. You may not like it but that is the way it is. I feel that CA is a mess up state with high taxes and expensive regulations and so on. But I have zero say in who gets elected there so whom am I to complain. So you may not like Walker but unless you live there you can't do a damn thing about it.
2
***** If you don't like how much you are getting paid then work someplace else. That business is not forcing you to work for them.
1
***** If you don't live in Wisconsin then you have no room to complain. With him winning and even winning a recall election it is clear that the people there like him. So why should you complain?
1
***** To you they are voting against their best interest. To the people of WI they wanted him.
1
***** That state has every power to put someone else into office. They had their chances and but didn't change. You are an outsider looking in. Ever though the citizens of WI actually like him? Unless you live there you have no voice in what goes on.
1
TurdFurgeson571 As I said, the people of WI can change anytime they want. And unless you live there you have no voice in what goes on.
1
TurdFurgeson571 How does it work? The people of WI elected him. That is their business. Unless you want to go all fascist and force your way onto them.
1
TurdFurgeson571 The people of WI elected Walker, they recalled him and he won again, and then he won again. They like him. Who are you as an outsider-as a non voting member of WI to tell the people of WI who they should vote for or how their government should be ran? That I why I brought up fascism. The citizens of WI voted for Walker, you don't like it and want it to change. That is fascism.
1
TurdFurgeson571 "Not everyone knows how policy affects them and they can be convinced to vote against their better interests." Or they vote against your best interest. Voting for Walker could be what they want. This is the problem I have with the political left. They are on the outside looking in on a situation and feel that the people involved in that situation are oppressed in some way, thus they must come in a "save the day". In reality they are just fine. But no, people on the political left, you for example, supposedly know better and must come in and mess with a situation that they have zero involvement in. It is the left being complete control freaks and overall being fascists. The people of WI voted for him 3 times. You claim they are voting against their best interest or they don't know better. Basically you are saying that the people of WI are dumb and you are so much smarter than them that they should listen to you. What is funny is that people who act like you typically have the most chaos in their lives. Seriously, the people of WI are fine, they have every ability to vote him out but they voted him in 3 times. Who are you to say they don't know better?
1
TurdFurgeson571 So basically what you are saying is that the voters of WI are stupid and that you have to come in and save the day. The voters of WI were so stupid that they got tricked and didn't see that they were lied too, but you on the other hand are so smart that you know better, and we should follow your lead. Have you ever consider running for president?
1
TurdFurgeson571 People are not being robbed of $6000. Is Scott Walker just taking money from people? No. So they are not being robbed. I dropped down to that tactic because here is your argument "The people of WI were so stupid that they got tricked by Walker. So me, who doesn't even live in WI should come save the day." That is your exact argument. Walker was elected 3 times. The people of WI seem to like him. You may not agree with him but as long as you don't live in WI you have zero say in what goes on there. Let me ask you, what state do you live in? How would you feel if people in WI tried to change your state's government?
1
William Slaughter You never asked me once. If you want my answer the answer is that not one dime is being taken away. That is not their money. If you want to earn more then find a way to earn more. But using government force to get more money is not right. That is not your money so not one dime is being taken away. By your logic those individuals are entitled to that money, like you feel you mom is entitled to that money for not reason at all. And you consider that right? If you want to compare ourselves to the civilized world we are arguably the best and even the poor are well off. "What percentage of bankruptcies are caused by involuntary medical expenses in America? " And how many people die due to inferior healthcare in other countries? If you remove factors such as murder, factors that are not involved in healthcare, we are number one in life expectancy. "But hey, its okay because it doesn't matter if its a cold and greedy king sitting on a throne of lies and an ottoman made from the broken dreams of the people.." You feel that people are entitled to an arbitrary amount of money, and you don't think that is greedy?
1
William Slaughter 1. Doesn't matter. You feel that someone is entitled to a certain pay for purely arbitrary reasons. 2. "Walker STRIPPED the wording of the law to lower base wages by approximately 1/3" That is only if those worker had a job to begin with and enough hours. As has been seen with the min. wage increasing it reduces jobs and hours for workers. While you can enforce how much is being paid per hour, you can't enforce how much is paid per week. So in all Walker did not steal one dime from anybody. As far as direct input, they can voice their opinion to their local state representative or rally to get him recalled again and find someone who might beat him. That worked so well last time. 3. Well my employment can't pay me for 1/3 of what they pay now, I am contracted to a guaranteed salary. If they were to I would revolt and find new employment which isn't hard. I had several jobs to choose from before I got the one I have now and they will come after me again. If I have to live off my friends and family for a couple of months until I get my new job then so be it. So I have answered your question. You just don't like the answer I gave of me finding a way to deal with it.
1
William Slaughter 1. Wanting people to live well is great, but you can't just give money, and ultimately resources away. Resources are limited. If you want a better life then work at it. If you can't afford certain things then either find a way to earn more or cut expenses. That is how life works. But getting paid an arbitrary amount which is ultimately more than you are worth doesn't help anybody. 2. If this passed and all of a sudden an employer cut your pay than that employer has issues to begin with and is going to not last long as a company. You have this false feeling that now employers are going to cut pay, they are not. Those who are already getting paid that amount for those hours will be fine. Really they are most likely are going to be better off. You are making an excuse with money again. If WI was really angry with him they would have voted him out, they had 2 times to do it and failed. Here is the requirements for a recall election " is 25% of the number of persons that voted in the last preceding election" That 25% is not a large number. Just because a few radicals who can't handle something they like don't get what they want doesn't mean that the rest of the state has to suffer. If those 49% really don't like Walker then next election they should put a guy up against him that can actually beat him. Or they can simply move. At this point you have 2 options (which is what you always have), change it or deal with it. But making excuses is not going to solve anything. 3. I didn't dodge the question. I explained to you how one, it won't happen, and two, if it did I will find another job. So off of your new question. If Mr. Walker signed the law he just signed my employer still won't cut my wage as I mentioned in point 1. Employers don't work like that. And if they did they won't be around long due to not getting good workers. I would have read the signs of a poor employer longer ago and got a new job before the situation would have happen. So my answer is the same. Now if Walker were to step in and make a law forcing employers to pay less then you have something to complain about., but this isn't the case. Mr. Walker is not forcing employers to pay less, thus he isn't stealing a dime.
1
TurdFurgeson571 I had to stoop down to that level because it was like I was talking to a child. This individual personally felt like the people of WI were tricked and thus were dumb, and that he should come in and save the day. That is acting like a child. You saying " If that's your only tactic then you've demonstrated that you don't deserve to sit at the big people table" is you acting like a child yourself. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. This can't be fun for you if you're a troll, which means no one is entertained.
1
William Slaughter " Its just a skewed isolationist way of thinking that creates a diplomatic impasse in the conversation" It isn't that, it isn't about isolation. It is about this country having different levels of government that have different responsibilities. At the state and local level the government represent the people there more and thus has more control on micromanaging domestic policies where the federal government doesn't. As long as the state government doesn't violate the constitution it is fine. "The key at this point is agreeing to disagree." You can't do that if what is being done is having a negative impact on other people's lives that have a smaller voice.
1
William Slaughter Well I don't see the other guy's point as valid. He may look at Walker and disagree with his actions, but to say that the people of WI were tricked and thus are incompetent is where I have a problem. I don't think Walker is a good leader as well, but I realize that the people of WI wanted him and voted for him. I feel the same about all the other states as well. I have no problem with him no liking Walker, I have a problem with him feeling that he needs to change the way the people of WI are doing things just because he feels they are incompetent.
1
TurdFurgeson571 No it doesn't make me a hypocrite because I want to allow the people of WI to exercise their state rights and run their state as they please. You want to change how they run their state even though you don't live there.
1
TurdFurgeson571 I said that you are allowed to talk about what goes up in another state, what you can't do is change their ways which is what you are suggesting. If you feel that what Walker, and ultimately the people of WI are doing is wrong or stupid then you have every right to do that. But you were saying the people of WI were tricked, that they were lied to and thus you were saying that they are incompetent and were suggesting that you should change their ways into what you think is right. That is my problem. You feeling that the people of WI are the victims here. I talk about what goes on in other states and realize that those citizens wanted that so they got it. You talk about it as if they were being oppressed and something needs to be done to change that. That is the difference.
1
TurdFurgeson571 If you are lied to than you need to take it upon yourself to educate yourself. That is personal responsibility.
1
William Slaughter If you are working for a company that is underpaying you than you need to find a new job if you thing you are worth more. If your business pays a higher wage than great, that is your business, some businesses simply can't afford higher wages. Look at how much Google pay their employees? Why don't you pay your employees that much?
1
TurdFurgeson571 That is your fault for not putting forth the effort to be more away. In the end it comes down to you. With smaller more local government you have more ability to be able to see what is actually being done and can be more aware about it. But in the end it is all on you.
1
William Slaughter It doesn't take much effort to find out simple information, especially with the internet these days. Your other examples are done by use of force, WI voted for the guy out of their own free will.
1
TurdFurgeson571 We do have freedom of speech. If someone lies it is your job to see that. And if that person gets caught in a lie then they will get exploited.
1
The term "living wage" is a subjective term. What is minimum comfort, or physical and mental moral well being? That is extremely broad. I knew of three guys living together in a studio. Imagine who cheap that rent is. The term "living wage" when broken down means nothing. A living wage to one person is not so to another. Here is an example. My girl friend works 30 hours a week at $8.50/hr. The living wage for 1 adult where I live, according to MIT is $10.11/hr. She is using that money to pay off a sports car. Now one may say that I am earning a lot and we live together. Well we do live together. I earn $1600/month, at 40 hours a week that is around $10/hr. If you total up our income and average it at 40 hours a week it averages at around the "living wage" of my city of $16.80. But she still owns a sports car. So according to the "living wage" calculator of MIT people should earn enough to buy sports cars. Remember that people.
1
In all the term "living wage" means nothing. Unless you can clearly define what it is or what is "moral" or "comfortable" then it is a useless term that needs to be removed from law.
1
Tyler Desrosiers I am for that.
1
Darke Exelbirth Less than 5% actually earn at or below the min. wage. Around 50% of those on min. wage get a raise within a year. All the min. wage does is kill jobs who need it the most and raise prices which raises the cost of living making it harder on the poor. So removing the min. wage actually gives the poor more money.
1
Darke Exelbirth A lot of people had next to nothing during the 1930s if you compared them to today's standard. I am better off than some rich person in the 30s, you are as well. You have the internet. Pay and working conditions were getting better before unions and regulations. Since then pay hasn't been improving that much.
1
Darke Exelbirth Your chart starts at 1933 conveniently. Let us look at a chart that dates back earlier http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4822a1.htm#fig4 Ok, you see mining deaths, before the increase in unions in the 30s, drop. They were dropping before regulations and unions. Your second chart means what? It doesn't prove anything except you don't know what wealth is. A homeowner has 30 times more wealth than a renter. A homeowner has, on average, around 60% of their wealth tied into their home. Beyond owning a home the average worker does not have much wealth. The reason why is because not everyone desires to own and run a business. Someone can have little wealth (or even negative wealth) and live comfortable. I have negative wealth and have my own 1 bedroom apartment, healthcare, my own car, food, 4 computers at home, a smart phone and other luxury items. Pointing at wealth inequality is completely flawed. There is no such thing as redistribution of the wealth, that is only destruction of wealth. You need to learn what wealth is. What happen when Ronald Reagan took over? He stopped massive inflation and a recession and brought growth. Poverty started to go up at the end of Carter's term, a recession was starting. Under Ronald Reagan it went down. What is funny is when the "war on poverty" began poverty was dropping and then went stagnate after that war began. Nice way to cherry pick data again. I look at data for a living. You can cherry pick all you want but you won't get by me.
1
Leo Roberts " If the min. wage just kept up with the rate of inflation it would be 12.00+ dollars an hr. " Not true. You are assuming everything inflates. The truth is that while the price of some goods and services increase, others don't and some decrease. Let us first look at a good. Cell phones. A brick cell phone, when adjusted for the CPI inflation cost $4000 in the late 80s. Do you have a cell phone? Did you pay $4000 for it? It is of the same quality or better than a brick cell phone? Now look at labor. With redbox and Netflix Blockbuster had to shut down their stores. So now the value of those employees dropped to $0/hr. But according to you they should still be employed and earning more. Tying inflation to the min. wage is completely flawed.
1
Darke Exelbirth I am showing you how in one area the workplace was getting safer before the increase in unions and regulations. It was happening all over the the market. I guess I struck a nerve with you on calling you out.
1
Darke Exelbirth You showed me a graph that started in 1930 and then from there made the conclusion that it was unions and regulations that led to safety on top of feeling that deaths were rising (because it went up in one year), both of which were incorrect. That is cherry picking. The fact is that safety at the workplace was improving before unions and regulations. So as a whole you are incorrect. On poverty and the heritage foundation? I don't read the heritage foundation. But it is true that poverty rates were dropping before the war on poverty was announced and since then have remained stagnate. I also noticed how you avoided wealth redistribution, maybe you learn what wealth is. As a whole you did a drastic example of cherry picking. I am pursuing my PhD and if I were to cherry pick data like you did my boss will personally fire me. So I am good at what I do.
1
Darke Exelbirth What you did was present a graph and made the claim that deaths in the workplace were rising before unions and regulations came in the 30s. I showed you something different and how you were mistaken, a best. I knew unions were around in the late 1800s, there were no where as big then as they were in the 30s. Same with regulations. But they did exist. But you said before the 30s deaths were rising? So according to you unions and regulations did nothing. So what is it? You are not even sure what is up and it shows with how you are changing your answers. Poverty didn't drop faster after the war on poverty was announced, it became stagnate. And when I say became stagnate, it was consistently dropping, and then flat lined. "People were producing more goods faster," Production is up due to technology. Workers are not working harder, technology has increased production. And wages have kept up with productivity. Wages have increased for those who develop that technology and invested in it. It is called skilled biased technological change. To claim that the min. wage hasn't kept up with productivity is completely false. That is because jobs tied to the min. wage haven't become more productive. Overall productivity has improved, but that doesn't mean that every job has increased in productivity. You need to learn that. A computer makes it easier for someone in a lab to do work, but the person stocking shelves or cooing burgers are not working faster. In reality the hourly compensation at restaurants are outpacing productivity. So in that low wage field workers are being paid more than their productivity. "We'd be seeing a $22 minimum wage." Overall productivity has gone up and the average hourly earnings in the US is around $24/hr. The min. wage is just that, the minimum. So if we have 100 athletes and on average can run a mile in 7 minutes, and now take 100 more and they run one in 6 minutes on average, there will still be some that are slow, that run slower than 7 minutes. The same idea works for wages. Overall production has improved, and overall people are paid more. But you still have a floor and that is the minimum. Even at that with increase production you are seeing increase supply of goods and services and them being better. For example almost everyone has a smart phone where in the past only the rich had brick phones. Cars are better, almost every place has AC. TVs are better. Prices are dropping which increases the purchasing power of the dollar which means people are paid more. How much money you have means nothing if there is nothing to buy. "if the minimum wage does not increase, poverty increases." The min. wage from 2006 to 2009 went up over $2/hr. but the poverty rate went up. So what gives? What we saw in the 70s and early 80s was an increase in inflation and a recession. The min. wage is a small part of the economy, but in the end there isn't one single good reason to even have a min. wage. Tying the min. wage to poverty is flawed. Compared to the overall economy the min. wage is a small part. That is why when it goes up you don't see any effects. But when you do remove other variables that hold more weight in the economy you see select groups are hurt due to the min. wage. That is increase in prices for areas that employ low wage workers, and an increase in unemployment in unskilled labor (such as teens). The former shouldn't happen because of increase productivity we should be seeing a drop in food prices for example. But we are not. That is because, as I mentioned, the min. wage is outpacing productivity. Plus, as I said before, why did poverty increase when the min. wage went up in 2006 to 2009? That contradicts what you said earlier (like when you said before unions deaths went up, but now you said unions existed while deaths were going up). I looked at the facts. You are the one that keeps changing you stance on things. Now that I have called you out on unions and deaths at jobs, what about poverty rates going up while the min. wage went up in 2006 to 2009? This should be good.
1
Darke Exelbirth Let us recap, you said this "Hm, look at that beginning bit. That part showing work place deaths increasing? That part is before regulations and unions. That part that starts dropping? That's after regulations and unions." You said that after linking me to a graph showing deaths going up and down before the 30s, the time before unions and regulations you claim, and said deaths were going up. I then show you a graph showing how deaths in the mining business were going down before the 30s and before those unions and regulations. You then say that unions and regulations existed during that time. So during that time where you said deaths were going up unions and regulations existed? Or they didn't? I am confused now? Which is it? You are making too many mistakes. Now onto poverty and the min. wage. Now like with work place safety and regulations and unions I can bring up a lot of data show who inaccurate you are in your statements. But then this will start going into the level of a dissertation and not a youtube comment, so I will keep things at a minimum. To prove my point to you I won't need much. According to the BLS a little over 20% of those who are poor don't work. That number has been fluctuating around that for years. So any type of min. wage increase won't help those individuals at all since they don't work at all. Around 2% of min. wage workers work full time. Less than 5% of workers earn at or below the min. wage. According to Sabia and Burkhauser 89% of workers who earned at or below the min. wage are not poor. The average household income of those individuals was over $47,000/yr. That is because they are secondary earners of the household, not primary earners. Also over 48% of poor workers earn over $9.50/hr already. In summary, raising the min. wage will not curve poverty because 1. Around 1/5 of those in poverty don't work at all 2. Those that do around half earn more than the min. wage, as in over $3 more at least 3. The vast majority, almost 90% on min. wage are not poor 4. And any relief on poverty is falsely assuming that prices won't go up and hours won't go down On min. wage and jobs and Reagan. When the min. wage went up before Reagan jobs were still lost. They were lost primarily for African Americans, especially black teens. To say the min. wage didn't lead to job loss before Reagan is completely false. Also from 1977 to 1980, before Reagan, the min. wage went up 80 cents an hour, and poverty still went up. Same with 1974 to 1976. Poverty was going down in the 80s until 1989 when....wait for it.....the min. wage went up again. Wow. This kind of puts a wrench in your poverty going down along with the min. wage going up statement.
1
Darke Exelbirth I have told you how wages are not being stagnate. Those that are earning more money were the ones that created and invested in new technology that has led to increase productivity. Productivity is up due to technology and the people involved in advancing it has gotten more money. It is called Skilled Bias Technological Change. Now those on the bottom have gotten a higher wage as well. That is because goods and services are better and more affordable so they have more wealth and more disposable income. Money in politics would not be a problem if we had limitations on the federal government.
1