What human cost is acceptable in controling illegal immigration?

[JoeB131]

Oh, ok. So you're advocating for people to defy our immigration system and break the law by coming here illegally. Just because "lots of things are illegal".

Nope. I'm saying that when a law is unworkable, impractical and contrary to economic reality, you shouldn't be surprised when people ignore it.

Kind of like how we had prohibition, and everyone was still getting drunk, until someone slapped themselves on the forehead and said, "Oh, yeah, that was stupid!"

So why not just come out and say that in the first place? Is there some reason you want this and can you tell us why it's best for the USA to have the country flooded with undocumented aliens whose identities and backgrounds we do not know?

Well, let's look at that. My late father immigrated from Germany when he was a child. And I'm pretty sure between WWI and WWII, no one was all that keen to see more Germans come over. But this funny thing happened. He grew up, served in the US Army in WWII, went on to work very hard, raised 5 kids to be solid citizens.

Now, there are things we should do to fix our immigration system, absolutely. But what Trump is doing is playing on the worst instincts of human nature, not anything resembling reform.

 

[JoeB131]

No, the system isn't--the Democrats are.

It's Democrats who fight for illegals to be here.
It's Democrats who fight to keep their sanctuary cities and now states.
It's Democrats who are fighting against the wall.
It's Democrats who allow them to have drivers licenses in their states so they can get to the jobs they're not supposed to have.

The system isn't the problem. Democrats are the problem.

It's republicans who gave us SImpson-Mazoli, the law that puts verification on the employer which is like letting the Foxes watch the henhouse.
It's republicans who own the companies that hire them.
It's Republicans who oppose a national ID system.
It's Republicans who have blocked immigration reform for over a decade.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Nope. I'm saying that when a law is unworkable, impractical and contrary to economic reality, you shouldn't be surprised when people ignore it.

Sure, if it's law for American citizen, but not if foreigners don't like our laws. They don't live here. They are not citizens of this country. If our laws don't work for them, then they should stay the hell out of this country.

 

[JoeB131]

What a Nazi you are. You're talking about stealing the property of citizens using government siege for mistakes the government made in the past. Then you people wonder why we want to keep our guns? But even if we could do that, it won't cover 1/100th of what we owe to others. You really think that rich people have all the money in the world, don't you?

Well, let's look at that.

The wealthiest 1 percent of the world's population now owns more than half of the world's wealth, according to a new report. The total wealth in the world grew by 6 percent over the past 12 months to $280 trillion, marking the fastest wealth creation since 2012, according to the Credit Suisse report.Nov 14, 2017

Richest 1% now owns half the world's wealth

 

[JoeB131]

Sure, if it's law for American citizen, but not if foreigners don't like our laws. They don't live here. They are not citizens of this country. If our laws don't work for them, then they should stay the hell out of this country.

Again, buddy, it take two to tango. They wouldn't be here if rich people didn't offer them jobs.

 

[kaz]

Yeah, the reasons may be different, but that's what it's like firing people. I keep it short and factual. Leftists of course say, don't you care about people? They have families. First of all of course in their typical style, leftists are telling me what to do with my money, not what they are doing with theirs. Second, of course I care about their family. But they should have cared more about their own family and tried harder.

again, you are a bottom feeder who doesn't even offer health insurance.

Managers who think they can fire their way to a better workplace usually have teams with shitty morale. Who wants to work at a place where you can be fired on a whim?

Again you are a "resume writer" who knows nothing about business.

You don't get insurance in addition to full salary. Jobs pay a fixed total amount. Whether it comes as medical insurance, healthcare contributions, salary, whatever.

If I didn't pay market compensation, I wouldn't have had employees.

Let's say your compensation to make up a number is $80K. Now would you rather have:

$70K in salary and $10K in benefits ...

... or ...

$80K in salary.

Joe:

Joe: $70K + $10K, that's greater than $80K !!!

Dumb ass. I'm not paying more than market wages, and my employees aren't working for less than market wages. All you're droning on about is again just that you know zero about business.

Now, do you want me to explain price and cost to you again?

I would rather have 10K in benefits. Benefits are not taxed and by not having that in your paycheck, it brings down your tax rate. It's one of the many failures of Commie Care. Now, you have to pay for insurance with after tax money that you won't likely be able to write-off.

Hey Joe, I meant to address this before.

Note you hit the nail on the head. You would rather have $70K in pay and $10K in benefits. I am indifferent, which is what the moron Joe doesn't understand. It's $80K to me either way. The reason you'd prefer the $10K in benefits is because of the reason you said, the tax rate. Also I can get group rates you can't get on your own. I'm indifferent. If the market value of the jobs is $80K, I pay $80K or you won't work for me.

What happens with Obamacare is that suddenly It's $50K in pay and $30K in benefits, and the $30K includes crappy medical care. I am not passing on that deal. To your point, my employees are. They don't want their take home pay to go that low.

In Joe's terms, he thinks that $80K, $70K+$10 and $50K+$30K are different amounts to me. I can afford the $80K, maybe the $70K+$10K but I can't afford the $50K+$30K. Oh, and he writes business resumes for a living ...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, the system isn't--the Democrats are.

It's Democrats who fight for illegals to be here.
It's Democrats who fight to keep their sanctuary cities and now states.
It's Democrats who are fighting against the wall.
It's Democrats who allow them to have drivers licenses in their states so they can get to the jobs they're not supposed to have.

The system isn't the problem. Democrats are the problem.

It's republicans who gave us SImpson-Mazoli, the law that puts verification on the employer which is like letting the Foxes watch the henhouse.
It's republicans who own the companies that hire them.
It's Republicans who oppose a national ID system.
It's Republicans who have blocked immigration reform for over a decade.

And what is immigration reform? Making laws that benefit the foreigners and a disadvantage to Americans. Of course we're against that. In other words, amnesty. It didn't work in the past and it won't work today.

It's Republicans that own companies? To my knowledge, there are just as many if not more Democrats that own companies as Republicans: Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Cosco's, Starbucks, Martha Stewart just to name a few.

National ID? We used to use drivers licenses as ID's, and then the Democrats started giving them to foreigners and we don't know who is a citizen and who is not. National ID's............from the same group of people fighting against Voter-ID claiming it won't solve any problems and it won't work?????

You are a perfect example of the Party of Excuses.

 

[Norman]

Oh, ok. So you're advocating for people to defy our immigration system and break the law by coming here illegally. Just because "lots of things are illegal".

Nope. I'm saying that when a law is unworkable, impractical and contrary to economic reality, you shouldn't be surprised when people ignore it.

Of course not being able to come here is "unpractical" for all of central America... scrap that, all of the world.

Wealth and welfare on demand, what's not to like?

This is why we have to make it more unpractical. Wall with armed guards who don't mess around. That or the wealth and welfare will be stripped from us as the low IQ horde steamrolls in.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yeah, the reasons may be different, but that's what it's like firing people. I keep it short and factual. Leftists of course say, don't you care about people? They have families. First of all of course in their typical style, leftists are telling me what to do with my money, not what they are doing with theirs. Second, of course I care about their family. But they should have cared more about their own family and tried harder.

again, you are a bottom feeder who doesn't even offer health insurance.

Managers who think they can fire their way to a better workplace usually have teams with shitty morale. Who wants to work at a place where you can be fired on a whim?

Again you are a "resume writer" who knows nothing about business.

You don't get insurance in addition to full salary. Jobs pay a fixed total amount. Whether it comes as medical insurance, healthcare contributions, salary, whatever.

If I didn't pay market compensation, I wouldn't have had employees.

Let's say your compensation to make up a number is $80K. Now would you rather have:

$70K in salary and $10K in benefits ...

... or ...

$80K in salary.

Joe:

Joe: $70K + $10K, that's greater than $80K !!!

Dumb ass. I'm not paying more than market wages, and my employees aren't working for less than market wages. All you're droning on about is again just that you know zero about business.

Now, do you want me to explain price and cost to you again?

I would rather have 10K in benefits. Benefits are not taxed and by not having that in your paycheck, it brings down your tax rate. It's one of the many failures of Commie Care. Now, you have to pay for insurance with after tax money that you won't likely be able to write-off.

Hey Joe, I meant to address this before.

Note you hit the nail on the head. You would rather have $70K in pay and $10K in benefits. I am indifferent, which is what the moron Joe doesn't understand. It's $80K to me either way. The reason you'd prefer the $10K in benefits is because of the reason you said, the tax rate. Also I can get group rates you can't get on your own. I'm indifferent. If the market value of the jobs is $80K, I pay $80K or you won't work for me.

What happens with Obamacare is that suddenly It's $50K in pay and $30K in benefits, and the $30K includes crappy medical care. I am not passing on that deal. To your point, my employees are. They don't want their take home pay to go that low.

In Joe's terms, he thinks that $80K, $70K+$10 and $50K+$30K are different amounts to me. I can afford the $80K, maybe the $70K+$10K but I can't afford the $50K+$30K. Oh, and he writes business resumes for a living ...

Of course, all benefits are included when you decide on a pay scale. Vacation is included, overtime pay is included, holiday pay is included, unemployment and workman's compensation are included. It's all included.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Sure, if it's law for American citizen, but not if foreigners don't like our laws. They don't live here. They are not citizens of this country. If our laws don't work for them, then they should stay the hell out of this country.

Again, buddy, it take two to tango. They wouldn't be here if rich people didn't offer them jobs.

And when the rich get busted giving them jobs, do you see Republicans protesting or Democrats?

They wouldn't be here for a lot of reasons, so quit laying the entire blame on employers. Sure, they are part of the problem, but so are anchor babies, so are our welfare programs, so are sanctuary cities, so are allowing them to rent or even buy homes, so are bilingual signs so they can understand WTF is going on around them. Just a ton of reasons.

 

[JoeB131]

Note you hit the nail on the head. You would rather have $70K in pay and $10K in benefits. I am indifferent, which is what the moron Joe doesn't understand. It's $80K to me either way. The reason you'd prefer the $10K in benefits is because of the reason you said, the tax rate. Also I can get group rates you can't get on your own. I'm indifferent. If the market value of the jobs is $80K, I pay $80K or you won't work for me.

Except that it isn't a constant. You see, the thing is, if I don't get sick, then you are right, that $10K isn't an advantage at all. Im just out that $10K.

If I do get sick, or a member of my family does, or I get into a serious accident, then I get perhaps hundreds of thousands in benefits that would otherwise bankrupt me.

For instance, some cancer therapies cost up to $30,000 a month to get.

Which is why no decent employee would work for your cheap ass company if it doesn't offer health insurance.

What happens with Obamacare is that suddenly It's $50K in pay and $30K in benefits, and the $30K includes crappy medical care. I am not passing on that deal. To your point, my employees are. They don't want their take home pay to go that low.

Except no one is paying 30K under ObamaCare unless they are chronically sick, and you wouldn't hire that person anyway. You'd probably be like my ex-boss who got rid of employees when they got six or pregnant to keep his insurance costs down.

You see, this is kind of why you are sort of a moron who never really has run a business.

 

[JoeB131]

And when the rich get busted giving them jobs, do you see Republicans protesting or Democrats?

The rich don't get busted for giving them jobs. IN fact, Trump just gave a commutation to some guy who was hiring illegals at his Kosher meat plant.

Trump commutes sentence of kosher meatpacking executive

They wouldn't be here for a lot of reasons, so quit laying the entire blame on employers. Sure, they are part of the problem, but so are anchor babies, so are our welfare programs, so are sanctuary cities, so are allowing them to rent or even buy homes, so are bilingual signs so they can understand WTF is going on around them. Just a ton of reasons.

Again, none of them would be here if there weren't jobs here. No one is coming here for a bilingual sign.

Now, here's the thing. This isn't like the 1990's when you had a million people crossing the border after NATFA demolished the Mexican Corn industry and displaced millions of agricultural workers. In fact, the number of people crossing the border has been reduced to only about 200K a year.

 

[kaz]

Yeah, the reasons may be different, but that's what it's like firing people. I keep it short and factual. Leftists of course say, don't you care about people? They have families. First of all of course in their typical style, leftists are telling me what to do with my money, not what they are doing with theirs. Second, of course I care about their family. But they should have cared more about their own family and tried harder.

again, you are a bottom feeder who doesn't even offer health insurance.

Managers who think they can fire their way to a better workplace usually have teams with shitty morale. Who wants to work at a place where you can be fired on a whim?

Again you are a "resume writer" who knows nothing about business.

You don't get insurance in addition to full salary. Jobs pay a fixed total amount. Whether it comes as medical insurance, healthcare contributions, salary, whatever.

If I didn't pay market compensation, I wouldn't have had employees.

Let's say your compensation to make up a number is $80K. Now would you rather have:

$70K in salary and $10K in benefits ...

... or ...

$80K in salary.

Joe:

Joe: $70K + $10K, that's greater than $80K !!!

Dumb ass. I'm not paying more than market wages, and my employees aren't working for less than market wages. All you're droning on about is again just that you know zero about business.

Now, do you want me to explain price and cost to you again?

I would rather have 10K in benefits. Benefits are not taxed and by not having that in your paycheck, it brings down your tax rate. It's one of the many failures of Commie Care. Now, you have to pay for insurance with after tax money that you won't likely be able to write-off.

Hey Joe, I meant to address this before.

Note you hit the nail on the head. You would rather have $70K in pay and $10K in benefits. I am indifferent, which is what the moron Joe doesn't understand. It's $80K to me either way. The reason you'd prefer the $10K in benefits is because of the reason you said, the tax rate. Also I can get group rates you can't get on your own. I'm indifferent. If the market value of the jobs is $80K, I pay $80K or you won't work for me.

What happens with Obamacare is that suddenly It's $50K in pay and $30K in benefits, and the $30K includes crappy medical care. I am not passing on that deal. To your point, my employees are. They don't want their take home pay to go that low.

In Joe's terms, he thinks that $80K, $70K+$10 and $50K+$30K are different amounts to me. I can afford the $80K, maybe the $70K+$10K but I can't afford the $50K+$30K. Oh, and he writes business resumes for a living ...

Of course, all benefits are included when you decide on a pay scale. Vacation is included, overtime pay is included, holiday pay is included, unemployment and workman's compensation are included. It's all included.

Yep. In corporate, we refer to that as the "fully loaded cost." Actually, in addition to the things you said, we typically mark it up another percent because there are more tertiary costs like HR, Payroll, computers, work space, break rooms, etc. that are directly related to employees. If we outsource or automate, those costs go down too. So whatever work you're doing for the company, those are part of the costs of you doing it that have to be covered by the work you're doing as well.

I had a meeting once at my graphic design business to explain this to the staff. How they think of their salary, and how I calculate it. I got a lot of good feedback that made a lot of sense when I explained it.

Joe's of course a business savant who doesn't know any of this. He thinks thinks it's all just a throw in by the company we don't count. We count EVERYTHING

 

[kaz]

Note you hit the nail on the head. You would rather have $70K in pay and $10K in benefits. I am indifferent, which is what the moron Joe doesn't understand. It's $80K to me either way. The reason you'd prefer the $10K in benefits is because of the reason you said, the tax rate. Also I can get group rates you can't get on your own. I'm indifferent. If the market value of the jobs is $80K, I pay $80K or you won't work for me.

Except that it isn't a constant. You see, the thing is, if I don't get sick, then you are right, that $10K isn't an advantage at all. Im just out that $10K.

If I do get sick, or a member of my family does, or I get into a serious accident, then I get perhaps hundreds of thousands in benefits that would otherwise bankrupt me.

For instance, some cancer therapies cost up to $30,000 a month to get.

Which is why no decent employee would work for your cheap ass company if it doesn't offer health insurance

That's classic, you still think $70K + $10K is more than $80K. Not a math major, were you? If I don't pay market wages, I don't have employees. The market is far more effective than government at forcing business owners to pay market wages.

I didn't get the relevance of the rest of your post. Insurance is purchased ex ante, not ex post. What is your point?

 

[kaz]

What happens with Obamacare is that suddenly It's $50K in pay and $30K in benefits, and the $30K includes crappy medical care. I am not passing on that deal. To your point, my employees are. They don't want their take home pay to go that low.

Except no one is paying 30K under ObamaCare unless they are chronically sick, and you wouldn't hire that person anyway. You'd probably be like my ex-boss who got rid of employees when they got six or pregnant to keep his insurance costs down.

You see, this is kind of why you are sort of a moron who never really has run a business.

You're so stupid Joe. I was showing the dynamic. Ray got that. I was just using your $80K salary which you make every year despite having one job, two jobs, changing jobs ...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

again, you are a bottom feeder who doesn't even offer health insurance.

Managers who think they can fire their way to a better workplace usually have teams with shitty morale. Who wants to work at a place where you can be fired on a whim?

Again you are a "resume writer" who knows nothing about business.

You don't get insurance in addition to full salary. Jobs pay a fixed total amount. Whether it comes as medical insurance, healthcare contributions, salary, whatever.

If I didn't pay market compensation, I wouldn't have had employees.

Let's say your compensation to make up a number is $80K. Now would you rather have:

$70K in salary and $10K in benefits ...

... or ...

$80K in salary.

Joe:

Joe: $70K + $10K, that's greater than $80K !!!

Dumb ass. I'm not paying more than market wages, and my employees aren't working for less than market wages. All you're droning on about is again just that you know zero about business.

Now, do you want me to explain price and cost to you again?

I would rather have 10K in benefits. Benefits are not taxed and by not having that in your paycheck, it brings down your tax rate. It's one of the many failures of Commie Care. Now, you have to pay for insurance with after tax money that you won't likely be able to write-off.

Hey Joe, I meant to address this before.

Note you hit the nail on the head. You would rather have $70K in pay and $10K in benefits. I am indifferent, which is what the moron Joe doesn't understand. It's $80K to me either way. The reason you'd prefer the $10K in benefits is because of the reason you said, the tax rate. Also I can get group rates you can't get on your own. I'm indifferent. If the market value of the jobs is $80K, I pay $80K or you won't work for me.

What happens with Obamacare is that suddenly It's $50K in pay and $30K in benefits, and the $30K includes crappy medical care. I am not passing on that deal. To your point, my employees are. They don't want their take home pay to go that low.

In Joe's terms, he thinks that $80K, $70K+$10 and $50K+$30K are different amounts to me. I can afford the $80K, maybe the $70K+$10K but I can't afford the $50K+$30K. Oh, and he writes business resumes for a living ...

Of course, all benefits are included when you decide on a pay scale. Vacation is included, overtime pay is included, holiday pay is included, unemployment and workman's compensation are included. It's all included.

Yep. In corporate, we refer to that as the "fully loaded cost." Actually, in addition to the things you said, we typically mark it up another percent because there are more tertiary costs like HR, Payroll and IT systems that are directly related to employees. If we outsource or automate, those costs go down too. So whatever work you're doing for the company, those are part of the costs of you doing it that have to be covered by the work you're doing as well.

I had a meeting once at my graphic design business to explain this to the staff. How they think of their salary, and how I calculate it. I got a lot of good feedback that made a lot of sense when I explained it.

Joe's of course a business savant who doesn't know any of this. He thinks thinks it's all just a throw in by the company we don't count. We count EVERYTHING

He's also the type of person that thinks if you own a business, you are loaded with money. Many businesses survive week by week, especially during the first couple of years; business owners who actually make less than their employees because payroll has to be met and the owners pay comes last with whatever is left over.

 

[JoeB131]

That's classic, you still think $70K + $10K is more than $80K. Not a math major, were you? If I don't pay market wages, I don't have employees. The market is far more effective than government at forcing business owners to pay market wages.

Guy, you work on the assumption I give a rats fuck about the business owner's problems. I don't. Quite honestly, fuck those guys.

I look at it from the viewpoint of the only people that count- the working people who get things done.

The problem with capitalism is capitalists... they're too fucking greedy.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The rich don't get busted for giving them jobs. IN fact, Trump just gave a commutation to some guy who was hiring illegals at his Kosher meat plant.

Trump commutes sentence of kosher meatpacking executive

But that's not why he was sentenced. You should read your own links.

He was busted for money laundering. That's the law he broke which gave him an extremely harsh sentence; a sentence harsher than many murder convictions in this country. Trump said he felt that this father of 10 children served eight years in prison, and that was enough considering the nature of the crime.

Again, none of them would be here if there weren't jobs here. No one is coming here for a bilingual sign.

Now, here's the thing. This isn't like the 1990's when you had a million people crossing the border after NATFA demolished the Mexican Corn industry and displaced millions of agricultural workers. In fact, the number of people crossing the border has been reduced to only about 200K a year.

So all those women with kids that we are fighting about came here because there are jobs? I don't think so, at least not from what I read.

It's estimated (and a very conservative estimate at that) we have over 12 million illegals in this country. Are you going to tell me most of them are working jobs illegally? And tell me, WTF have the Democrats done about that? Nothing, because they want those illegals here and the illegals know it.

 

[JoeB131]

He's also the type of person that thinks if you own a business, you are loaded with money. Many businesses survive week by week, especially during the first couple of years; business owners who actually make less than their employees because payroll has to be met and the owners pay comes last with whatever is left over.

Yeah, here's the thing. In the immortal words of Mrs. Clinton, I can't be concerned about under capitalized businesses.

The thing is, you guys INSIST on maintaining this awful system getting health coverage through employers, you know, instead of making it a government service that everyone gets by merely being a citizen. You know, the way the rest of the world does it and gets far better results.

So if you are going to ABSOLUTELY INSIST that we all have to bow down to employers to get our health insurance, then employers should be compelled to provide that service as a benefit without any fucking bitching about it.

If you can't provide health coverage for employees, you probably shouldn't be in business... period.

Now, all that said, what Mrs. Clinton came up with in 1993 wasn't a bad idea. If your company is too small to afford insurance, you put your employees on a public option and pay an extra tax.

Big insurance, though,realized that employers would happily dump their employees off into that, and panicked.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Guy, you work on the assumption I give a rats fuck about the business owner's problems. I don't. Quite honestly, fuck those guys.

That's obvious.

The problem with capitalism is capitalists... they're too fucking greedy.

But people who feel they should be paid what they want aren't greedy. Gotcha.