Fly Tie-ers
 

Fly Tie-ers
 

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

Uh huh, well that ain't A) so like I said, I'm not buying your
non-exploitive, benevolent employer of illegals bull****.


yada yada yada snipped
Ah, well, what goes around comes around, I
summose...used to be, the lives of yer chinks and micks were worth a
whole lot less than that of yer negroes...


What in the hell does any of that nonsense have to do with
chiselers hiring illegals off-the-books so they don't have
to pay Social Security, Workmen's Comp or any other payroll
tax like a legit employer ?

It's ironic that you pretend to champion undocumented workers (or
whatever PC term you prefer), while advocating denying to them the work
they seek.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Fly Tie-ers
 

rw wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

Uh huh, well that ain't A) so like I said, I'm not buying your
non-exploitive, benevolent employer of illegals bull****.


yada yada yada snipped
Ah, well, what goes around comes around, I
summose...used to be, the lives of yer chinks and micks were worth a
whole lot less than that of yer negroes...


What in the hell does any of that nonsense have to do with
chiselers hiring illegals off-the-books so they don't have
to pay Social Security, Workmen's Comp or any other payroll
tax like a legit employer ?

It's ironic that you pretend to champion undocumented workers (or
whatever PC term you prefer), while advocating denying to them the work
they seek.

If they're undocumented or illegal (or whatever racist term you prefer)
they will necessarily be exploited while at the same time denying legal
workers the employment which they seek.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Fly Tie-ers
 

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
rw wrote:

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

It's ironic that you pretend to champion undocumented workers (or
whatever PC term you prefer), while advocating denying to them the
work they seek.


If they're undocumented or illegal (or whatever racist term you prefer)
they will necessarily be exploited while at the same time denying legal
workers the employment which they seek.

So now I'm a racist for pointing out an irony in your argument? What do
you think you are, a junkyard dog? You appear to me more like an ankle
biter.

I'm for enforcement of employer sanctions (which already exist), as I
gather you are, too. Just be prepared to pay a LOT more for strawberries
and yard work, and even skilled construction or an array of other things.

I'm also for enforcement of border security.

I wonder how much of our economy is "under the table" -- cash payments
off the books. I know a lot of people who work that way, and they aren't
all illegal aliens, though a couple are. I think it's a hell of a lot of
the economy, and I'm not even counting drug transactions.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Fly Tie-ers
 

On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 18:47:40 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Uh huh, well that ain't A) so like I said, I'm not buying your
non-exploitive, benevolent employer of illegals bull****.

yada yada yada snipped
Ah, well, what goes around comes around, I
summose...used to be, the lives of yer chinks and micks were worth a
whole lot less than that of yer negroes...

What in the hell does any of that nonsense have to do with
chiselers hiring illegals off-the-books so they don't have
to pay Social Security, Workmen's Comp or any other payroll
tax like a legit employer ?

Ken, based on the above, I'd offer that you really don't what you are
talking about.

I'd, um, guess that most of those who hire illegal aliens are very small
to smallish businesses simply looking to get a good job done for a
reasonable (in context) wage cost.

For example, a framing subcontractor can't afford to pay a crew a
_salary_ of $800-1000.00 a week per person, including full bennies, on
top of all of the "system-induced" costs. But them paying an
"off-the-books" employee a flat rate of $20USD an hour might be doable.
If they must pay "on-the-books," they might only be able to pay the
employee $10-12 an hour. It has nothing whatsoever to do with them
being "chiselers" or exploiters, it has to do with them being entitled
to make a reasonable return on _their_ investment, which often is not a
whole hell of a lot more than their own "on-the-books" upper-level
employees who have absolutely none of their own capital at risk.

Another example is in the food service industry. There simply isn't all
that much money in many non-chain, high-volume, low-cost restaurants. As
an ironic example, many "Mexican" and "Asian" restaurants fall into this
category.

And the story I related was to illustrate that most successful business
people, and esp. the smaller, "made it on their own" ones, realize that
exploiting employees is simply not good business, regardless of their
personal feelings on the "wrongness" of doing such.

Now, if you're talking about illegals who _offer_ to work for less than
the total cost of a "legal" worker, that's a different matter. See,
many of these folks may be illegal, but guess what? They ain't stupid -
they can read, write, and if ya can believe it, understand math,
budgeting and costing, and market concepts. With this in mind, they
know they can offer to work for what a legal worker _demands_ and costs
aside from wages MINUS 20-40%, often roughly slightly less than the
hourly rate the legal gets. meaning the illegal keeps slightly more, and
both employee and employer win, with neither one being "exploited" in
the purely negative context.

The long and short of it is anyone who makes a blanket statement about
those who hire illegals simply demonstrates not only their lack of
knowledge about it, but their closed-minded determination to stay
uninformed.

HTH,
R

Fly Tie-ers
 

On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 21:44:31 -0600, rw
wrote:

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
rw wrote:

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

It's ironic that you pretend to champion undocumented workers (or
whatever PC term you prefer), while advocating denying to them the
work they seek.


If they're undocumented or illegal (or whatever racist term you prefer)
they will necessarily be exploited while at the same time denying legal
workers the employment which they seek.

So now I'm a racist for pointing out an irony in your argument? What do
you think you are, a junkyard dog? You appear to me more like an ankle
biter.

I'm for enforcement of employer sanctions (which already exist), as I
gather you are, too. Just be prepared to pay a LOT more for strawberries
and yard work, and even skilled construction or an array of other things.

I'm also for enforcement of border security.

I wonder how much of our economy is "under the table" -- cash payments
off the books. I know a lot of people who work that way, and they aren't
all illegal aliens, though a couple are. I think it's a hell of a lot of
the economy,

Of course it is, and it finds its way into the tax system, thankfully
mostly where it belongs - in the community in which it was earned. For
example, take a general who pays his subs on a $350,000USD home. The
money to pay for the home (the GC's client) is likely earned in the
state, if not the city and county, and the GC is likely "local" as are
his subs. Now, let's assume his subs have the typical range of illegals
(more on a framing or finish trades crew, less on the licensed trades
like electrical subs) who are paid in cash "off-the-books" and send some
home south of the US border, but spend the rest locally, buying
everything from clothes to food to rent. That money doesn't get
Federally-taxed at the transaction from employer to employee (sub to
illegal), but sales tax, property tax, even income tax, etc. all get
taken out sooner or later.

and I'm not even counting drug transactions.

I've heard, but have no hard numbers to demonstrate, that drug
transactions are the most costly in the "underground" economy to the
overall economy of a country, state, city, etc. I'm not talking about
the costs of silly-assed attempts to jail responsible adults for having
a joint or three, but rather, that very little of the money spent in
hard-core _drug transactions_ is legit money that remains even in the
country of origin. IOW, the majority of "street" buyers are using
ill-gotten gains to buy the drugs that the street dealer got fronted
from the lower distributor who got it fronted to the next level, etc.,
etc., and when the ill-gotten drug dollar makes its way up the chain,
the bulk winds up off-shore. I'd guess that some portion makes its way
back via purchases of legit goods, but I can readily believe that it
sucks more out than illegals sending money home.

TC,
R

Fly Tie-ers
 

On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 07:11:18 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Yes, slur. Comparing undocumented workers to crack dealers is
a bigoted slur and it's offensive.
Ken, I have never compared illegal aliens to crack dealers....
Just like the other anonymous bigot, you don't even have the
courage of your own repugnant convictions.

Courage? COURAGE??? BWAHAHAHAHAHA

Yeah, no courage. You post an offensive slogan with your every
post and instead of defending it all you can do is dissemble
and deny. You'd have us believe your offensive slogan has nothing
to do with illegal immigration but rather it's a jab at PC
language ? Either you're incredibly stupid and merely parroting
some radio talk show host or you don't even have the courage of
your own repugnant convictions. Either way your every post is
offensive.

Ken, what is offensive about a similie? It has NOTHING to do with
immigration, just the PC bull****. Although I believe that the
ideological differences between the republicans and democrats got
homogenized in the mud a LONG time ago, You are really starting to
sound like one of the bleeding-heart-liberal, welfare loving
nanny-state democrats that got us into this mess to begin
with....Everybody must change their way of living, speech, what they
wear, etc etc etc, so we don't offend anybody. Sorry Ken, but I'm not
dropping my sig just so you feel better. BTW....You still have not
told us what part of ILLEGAL that you do not understand. Better yet,
please give us YOUR definition of ILLEGAL.
--
Calling an Illegal Alien an "Undocumented Worker" is like calling a
Crack Dealer an "Unlicensed Pharmacist"

Fly Tie-ers
 

rw wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
rw wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:

It's ironic that you pretend to champion undocumented workers (or
whatever PC term you prefer), while advocating denying to them the
work they seek.


If they're undocumented or illegal (or whatever racist term you prefer)
they will necessarily be exploited while at the same time denying legal
workers the employment which they seek.

So now I'm a racist for pointing out an irony in your argument?

No, but perhaps if you don't like PC terms you'd prefer racist
terms instead.

I'm for enforcement of employer sanctions (which already exist), as I
gather you are, too. Just be prepared to pay a LOT more for strawberries
and yard work, and even skilled construction or an array of other things.

I'm also for enforcement of border security.

I wonder how much of our economy is "under the table" -- cash payments
off the books. I know a lot of people who work that way, and they aren't
all illegal aliens, though a couple are. I think it's a hell of a lot of
the economy, and I'm not even counting drug transactions.

Yep, on that much we agree. But I'm not championing undocumented
workers so much as saying we can't demonize millions of people
who are already here because lots of American chiselers were
willing to hire them. And it's offensive to compare them to
crack dealers.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Fly Tie-ers
 

Fly Tie-ers