Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Wow I could not believe this one, Well yes I can, Sure Why not.

WE CAN HELP

Here is the official Add on the Department of Labor web site

http://www.dol.gov/wecanhelp/

http://www.newpatriotjournal.com/Articl ... _of_US_law

I wonder when the DOL will really address the bigger problem (and really do something about it) - employers knowingly employing and exploiting illegal immigrants. I mean, if the work wasn't here to begin with...

Why should an illegal alien get paid the same as anyone else? Undocumented workers don't pay taxes! This ad campaign is nothing but an attempt to kiss the asses of illegals in preparation for allowing them to vote in the 2012 presidential election. Shameful - Obama and his administration are shameful, and I become more embarrassed of them every time I read something like this.

How can the Fed (DoL) offer to help undocumented workers to get paid fairly? And they offer to do it "Confidentially"? This means to me that they will go after the employer for violating "Fair Labor" practices, but they won't turn the undocumented worker over to the IRS (i.e. confidentiality).

*BaRF*

Maybe the Secretary of Labor needs to go back to Mexico herself!

And you can bet the business owners that are currently employing these illegals are going to pass those costs along to the consumer!

I have no problem with DoL going after the businesses. Illegal immigrants by definition are criminals. Employers hiring illegals are therefore criminals. I'm sure they'll all plead plausible deniability, but how's it anyone's fault but the business owner that due diligence wasn't performed?

I don't blame the Mexicans for this problem - they're just taking advantage of a situation which we created here in the US. I know, we can't go after businesses like that - I mean, won't somebody think of the campaign contributions???

chfaunce wrote:I don't blame the Mexicans for this problem - they're just taking advantage of a situation which we created here in the US.

You've got to be kidding. WE created the problem?! The problem was created when Pedro snuck across the border and offered to paint for half the wage of a US citizen. Employers had no choice, but to hire Pedros themselves or be driven out of business.

TheGodfather wrote:
WE created the problem?! The problem was created when Pedro snuck across the border and offered to paint for half the wage of a US citizen. Employers had no choice, but to hire Pedros themselves or be driven out of business.

I think you just made my point. Nobody was forced to hire anyone. Business owners chose to hire these people because they could hire a labor force for half the price (or whatever they're paying) and either a) pocket the difference, and/or b) offer something at a cheaper price to the consumer / end user. It's probably a little bit of both. I mean on top of the wage issue, they're not paying any of the benefits they'd probably have to pay otherwise (you know, like healthcare!).

If the work wasn't here, they might not be so eager to cross the border. But, WE give them the opportunity to make a few bucks. So, yes, we created and continue to propagate a problem.

chfaunce wrote:

TheGodfather wrote:
WE created the problem?! The problem was created when Pedro snuck across the border and offered to paint for half the wage of a US citizen. Employers had no choice, but to hire Pedros themselves or be driven out of business.

I think you just made my point. Nobody was forced to hire anyone. Business owners chose to hire these people because they could hire a labor force for half the price (or whatever they're paying) and either a) pocket the difference, and/or b) offer something at a cheaper price to the consumer / end user. It's probably a little bit of both. I mean on top of the wage issue, they're not paying any of the benefits they'd probably have to pay otherwise (you know, like healthcare!).

If the work wasn't here, they might not be so eager to cross the border. But, WE give them the opportunity to make a few bucks. So, yes, we created and continue to propagate a problem.

The illegals could only offer to do the work for half the price because they could rely on government welfare to cover the rest of their "wages." The employer also has to pay all kinds of additional taxes on the legal workers which makes their effective cost even higher.

This would be a much smaller issue if the government wasn't handing out freebies, taxing employers for various employment related programs, and other benefits based on income/employment. The illegals couldn't afford to work for so little and still live in the US if they weren't being subsidized by the US government.

Reducing production costs are not the issue. Those cost reductions aren't real. Instead they are simply transferred to the government which is ultimately transferred to the tax payers. E.g. I wouldn't have to make as much money as I do if you volunteered to pay for part of my mortgage (government subsidized housing), my health-care (Obama-care), my retirement (SS), my food (food stamps, WIC, etc.), and various other welfare aspects of my life.

The illegals can work for what they do because by and large they don't have the same overhead as American citizens do, but still can qualify for many government programs (federal/state...just look at CA).

I don't take CA seriously anymore. I'd like to see it fall into the ocean.

But, seriously, what if we simply said that we're no longer going to hire undocumented illegal workers? What if we just took the jobs out of the picture?

Reducing production costs ARE another part of the issue - to the business owner. But, yes, subsidies are paid at some point.

chfaunce wrote:I think you just made my point. Nobody was forced to hire anyone. Business owners chose to hire these people because they could hire a labor force for half the price (or whatever they're paying) and either a) pocket the difference, and/or b) offer something at a cheaper price to the consumer / end user.

Wrong. Once Pedro started knocking on doors and stealing business from honest legal hard working Americans, business owners had only two choices a) go bankrupt or b) hire illegals.

chfaunce wrote:Reducing production costs ARE another part of the issue - to the business owner. But, yes, subsidies are paid at some point.

This is like saying water is wet. Every business is wanting to reduce costs as it increases profits and/or allows them to offer the same goods or services at lower prices so they can gain market share. Selling more, even at a lower profit margin, can make you more total profit if done correctly.

Thank you for missing the whole point as usual.

The illegals can only offer to work for that little money because they are being subsidized. If the subsidy wasn't there, they would demand more money because they would have to pay for many things they are currently getting free or at steeply discounted prices.

gunderwood wrote:
Thank you for missing the whole point as usual.

The illegals can only offer to work for that little money because they are being subsidized. If the subsidy wasn't there, they would demand more money because they would have to pay for many things they are currently getting free or at steeply discounted prices.

And you're missing my point. Or just ignoring it to make yours, not sure which.

Forget subsidies. What if the jobs weren't there? What if there was no money to be made?

chfaunce wrote: Forget subsidies. What if the jobs weren't there? What if there was no money to be made?

What if our economy sucked and unemployment soared?! Oh wait...

So basically it's all our fault because we had a successful economy? Boy do I feel like a scumbag. How dare we be successful! Don't we know that criminals LIKE money?!

TheGodfather wrote: Wrong. Once Pedro started knocking on doors and stealing business from honest legal hard working Americans, business owners had only two choices a) go bankrupt or b) hire illegals.

I think a lot of them simply took jobs that Americans didn't want. Pick produce, clean bathrooms, hard manual labor - jobs that Americans think they're too good for or won't take because it's more lucrative to collect subsidized benefits. Amongst themselves, they're also highly competitive and will probably work harder than someone else so that the employer brings them on the next day.

But, back to my point, we've made this problem for ourselves.

Business owners can hire legal citizens and not go bankrupt. They'll just not be able (or be willing) to offer the same product, or service, and the price we're paying now. All business owners will have to agree to not hire illegals or be regulated in such a way that if they are caught hiring illegals, the penalties are stiff. It can be done; we're just not collectively willing to do it. Why? If the business owner's cost goes up, the price to the consumer usually follows.

Guess what? We don't want to pay that price. We're cheap! Don't believe me? Look at Wal-Mart's success.

It's all about the money and the Golden Rule - he who has the gold makes the rules.

TheGodfather wrote:

chfaunce wrote: Forget subsidies. What if the jobs weren't there? What if there was no money to be made?

What if our economy sucked and unemployment soared?! Oh wait...

So basically it's all our fault because we had a successful economy? Boy do I feel like a scumbag. How dare we be successful! Don't we know that criminals LIKE money?!

Correction: what if there was no money to be made for an illegal? What if you had to prove citizenship in order to enter into any employment contract?

Yeah, the economy sucks and unemployment is soaring. How about we put those 500k people (or whatever it was last month) to work picking berries and hanging drywall?

My biggest concern is that "Confidentialy " part..haven't we all seen enough back room political abuse already? It got us Obamacare, The Stimulus ?, The 26 Billion union bailout and a host of other garbage that the admin just went ahead and did against the peoples will... Transparency was just a campaign promise and I wonder how much other BS is being transacted behind closed doors as we discuss this,

chfaunce wrote:

gunderwood wrote:
Thank you for missing the whole point as usual.

The illegals can only offer to work for that little money because they are being subsidized. If the subsidy wasn't there, they would demand more money because they would have to pay for many things they are currently getting free or at steeply discounted prices.

And you're missing my point. Or just ignoring it to make yours, not sure which.

Forget subsidies. What if the jobs weren't there? What if there was no money to be made?

I didn't miss it, it was a silly point. Get rid of the jobs! Brilliant! I don't know about you, but I can't do with out food and basic sanitation services.



Better yet, lets cause all kinds of unintended consequences by using government force to solve the problem they are creating with the subsidies. Also, brilliant!



American's are learning that while the direct cost of a good subsidized by the cheap illegal work, those cost savings aren't real because they pay more in taxes so the subsidies can continue. In fact, we actually pay even more because we have fund all of those government jobs creating and enforcing the regulations concerning subsidies.

People have limited resources and need to allocate them in the most efficient way possible to meet their desires. We on this forum reallocate some of our limited resources so we can buy firearms and ammo. That may mean we have to shop at Walmart for some goods or even do without some things. There is nothing wrong with that. It doesn't mean we are "cheap." It simply means that we have more important things (by our value system) to allocate our resources towards rather than spend $500 on a pair of jeans at the snobby brands.

Of course people want to buy the same goods or services at a lower cost. How would you like to purchase a real Ferrari for $30k? I'd bet you would jump at the chance (after checking to make sure it wasn't a scam). Unless you are materialistic, the desire for a Ferrari has nothing to do with the how much it costs. You may want it to drive it hard, you may want it for image, you may want to collect it, etc. But you would always prefer to pay less for the same item, as long as it really is the same thing.

Businesses are the same way with labor. If I need a crop picked and the quality of work is the same, I hire the cheaper one because it means more profit for me. Why would I do anything else?

Again, these things are obvious, but they are not the causes of the problem. A market based economy (or what is left of it) needs these incentives and mechanisms to function.

You have to be a full blown Marxist or just plain crazy to actually suggest we just get rid of the jobs!



Of course, what you meant to say (hey, you wrote it not me) is you want the government to crack down on anyone who hires the cheapest labor. Viewed another way, you support an arbitrary, government enforced minimum wage. The problem isn't the employers hiring cheaper labor or even the illegals offering to work for less. Those are natural market functions (labor competes at higher price points too) which must be allowed to continue. Just like private sales of firearms. Just like hiring the neighborhood kid to cut your grass. Etc.

Using up even more resources to crack down on the hiring of the cheapest labor is insane. Just so we can keep things straight:

1. We pay high taxes so the government can provide subsidies to workers and corporations. Of course, those who donate the most money or can wrap themselves in the biggest flag get the best subsidies...generally, much more than they put into the system while other pay way more than they receive.

2. The government takes a nice percentage of those taxes to fund itself. Regulation isn't free baby! Neither is enforcement.

3. Some American's learn they can live off of these government subsidies. Awesome dude! Get paid for no work! Of course, this puts an even larger burden on the other American's who actually are working since their taxes must go up.

4. The illegals come here because they want a better way of life. They can get a better way of life because they can perform jobs which require very little skill or education (not all of them obviously, but clearly those at the bottom of the pay scale we are discussing). They offer to do their work for less because they can make up for the "lost" wages through subsidies.

5. Securing the boarder is expensive.

So your proposed solution increases enforcement against employers (#2), which will raise our taxes and expand government. If it is even moderately successful it will raise the prices of goods and services. Since the illegals don't have any jobs now, they can still have a better standard of living by doing nothing like #3, so our taxes don't go down there.

So you want us to live with the overcrowded government services, pay higher taxes, expand government, pay more for goods and services and still not solve anything? That is why I ignored your idea of "getting rid of the jobs." It isn't the root cause, it solves nothing and in general is just silly.

Let's look at my solution.

Remove the subsidies and government employed to hand them out. Also, lower the tax rates the same amount.


Yup, that is it. What happens then...

1. If the American's in #3 can no longer choose not to work and the illegals must actually demand a living wage, things get interesting. The marketplace is very complex, so saying who would win this competition is difficult. However, since labor cost will be going up, so will prices on some items previously subsidized. No way around that.

2. Although prices in #1 will go up, they will not go up as much as the taxes we were paying previously because we cut out the government middle man. Sure, in the short term there would be some government employee's who are unemployed, but what does everyone do with the money they saved? I.e. all the money not spent on government employee's handing out subsidies, isn't gone...it gets spent on other products. This increases the demand for those products and those employer's need more labor.

The brilliance of this move is that people who's contribution to society was handing out money, in short order, will be employed actually making things we want. Instead of being overhead, they are now productive!

3. Because of the lack of subsidies and the new competition for labor, some illegals (I would argue a great many of them) will simply go home. No job, no subsidy, what else can they do? In short order, the number of illegals drops drastically.

4. American's who weren't working before and now working. Don't forget I've just transferred a large population of people from unproductive consumers of resources to productive members of society.

5. By eliminating the incentive to come here, securing the boarder just got a whole lot easier and cheaper. Again, I can probably transfer some LE out of the overhead tasks associated with guarding the boarder and into producing things American's want (besides boarder security). The key here is we can provide the same or even a better level of service for less money and people (less resources). Win-Win.

So by removing the subsidy, I can lower taxes, decrease government, transfer overhead workers to productive workers while not reducing the quality (in quantities far greater than just the subsidy cuts) and reduce illegal immigration (virtually eliminate?). If you understand the above, you should realize that I just increased the quality of American's lives. I have shown a way to get more for less while not reducing the quality. Sure, the transition won't be easy and some prices will rise, but that is the case anytime you are moving away from the nanny state.

Learning to think, work and live for yourself is always a difficult task when you are use to doing whatever your masters in DC tell you too. It is like being a freed slave. Sure, it is hard, but wasn't it worth it?

My point was not to get rid of the jobs. My point is more to do with job eligibility. If you're here illegally, you're not eligible to work and employers should be held liable for hiring illegal workers.

But your solution makes sense. I don't see it ever happening, though. Unfortunate.

chfaunce wrote:My point was not to get rid of the jobs. My point is more to do with job eligibility. If you're here illegally, you're not eligible to work and employers should be held liable for hiring illegal workers.

But your solution makes sense. I don't see it ever happening, though. Unfortunate.

I was just having some fun with the way you wrote it.

No, it won't happen because it would require the government to reduce its power over the people. Why should the government interject itself between two private parties and tell them how much they must work for, who they can hire, etc. If they can do that, what is keeping them from banning private sales of firearms?

The government is the one making this all possible. They subsidize it, which allows them to undercut American wages. They refuse to secure the boarder, which allows them to come here. They refuse to enforce the laws, which allows them to stay here. According to the government, the only answer is for us, American citizens, to give up our freedoms. It is we the people who will have to submit to a national: "ID card," "employment database," etc. It is we the people who will have to pay additional taxes to support such a scheme because they wasted our tax dollars instead of doing their job!

I have no problem with the AZ law. It is just like a LEO checking to see if you have any outstanding warrants during a traffic stop. I do have a problem with the government saying I can't hire a neighborhood teenager to cut my grass because I haven't check their papers. I have no problem with lawful immigration. There are many people who want to come here who could make a positive impact on our society. Let them in lawfully.

If we let the politicians get away with making us give up our freedoms to "solve" the problem they created, as Franklin said, we don't deserve liberty.

Illegal immigration and the support structure that allows it to exist in such massive quantities is the doing of our own government. It isn't an accident. Hold them accountable.

Uh, excuse me folks. I work for half pay too - consider all the crap they withhold from my check.

This is merely another in our face tactic by this socialist/fascist administration that they will indeed do anything they want to stay in power. In this little example we see them garnering the votes of legal hispanics in this country and setting up for the big one -- the vote of every criminal immigrant.

zephyp wrote:Uh, excuse me folks. I work for half pay too - consider all the crap they withhold from my check.

This is more true than you think. According to this, we work until April 13th for the government. http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday/

What is scary about that is it includes those who don't pay any taxes at all. I.e. it is the average, which is greatly skewed by many people who don't pay anything.