Re: The Value of the Least Preferred Job Candidate Revealed
an716472@anon.penet.fi
Sat, 24 Aug 1996 07:54:31 UTC
Re: The Value of the Least Preferred Job Candidate Revealed
If Mr. Libby reviewed his own analysis for just two
extra seconds, he would have been able to detect the
blaring flaws in it.
Mr. Libby wrote:
> It may help to clarify things if we attach some "wages"
> to each economic class:
[Note: the following is best read with a fixed width font.]
> Without EEO With EEO, H1 With EEO, H2
>
> blue grey blue grey blue grey
>200 0 20 \ employer $200 4 16 $200 0 0
>150 0 0 / class $150 0 0 $150 0 0
>100 0 60 \ employee $100 0 0 $100 0 0
> 50 20 0 / class $87.5 16 64 $ 50 20 80
>Average wage=$110 Average wage=$110 Average wage=$50
> Well, H2 just doesn't make sense - why would the upper class act
> against its own interest, and what happens to the surplus wages?
> Of course, the upper class would keep the surplus
The Author now responds:
First of all, the "higher class" of WORKERS is not intention-
ally downwardly equalizing its own wages, nor are these WORKERS
keeping any surplus (But they are unwittingly getting caught
up in a downward wage bidding spiral due to employers' reluctance
to announce pay rates.)
In your example, you have the blues, presumably the lesser
preferred job candidates, and you have the greys, presumably
the more preferred job candidates. What you left out of your
ultra-simplistic social structure are members of higher
classes still. You have business owners who are making out
like bandits because the cost savings from the downwardly
equalized wages of their workers is contributing greatly to
their businesses' profits. The workers are going into debt
to support a standard of living, so now we see the pledge of
the worker's future earnings also contributing to the
business owners' current profits. Then you have second-rate
politicians who have learned that getting on the politically
correct bandwagon insures them of re-election. In others
words, second-rate politicians have been "buying" the votes
of the downtrodden by promising the downtrodden a very false
bill of goods. So now you see what members of the higher
classes are benefiting from downward wage equalization.
(There are others, some of whom are not even in this country.)
You presented your hypothetical case, H1. Yes, this does
apply in reality. It demonstrates the initial upward
equalization of the lesser preferred job candidates.
However, your depiction is like a snapshot frozen in
time. What it does not depict are the dynamics of what
happens next. The lesser preferred job candidates are
initially equalized to the value of the more preferred
job candidates, and from there both groups hold hands as
they are both downwardly equalized to the perceived value of
the least preferred job candidate for the job category in
question. See my treatise! It clearly states that any
initial equalization is strictly illusory and temporary.
So you see, your hypothetical case H1 morphs into hypothet-
ical case H2 over time, and then hypothetical case H2 will
eventually morph into an even more adverse situation -
that is, preferred workers will no longer be willing to
work for niggardly wages so they will flee the country in
order to earn a living in foreign countries leaving the
entire U.S. job market and the entire U.S. to the lesser
preferred job candidates.
Mr. Libby presented case H-2b:
> With EEO, H2-b
>
> blue grey
> $350 4 16
> $200 0 0
> $150 0 0
> $100 0 0
> $ 50 16 64
The Author now, responds:
I'll be darned if I can figure out what case H2-b is
all about, but I think that it had been attributed to me.
This just goes to remind me of the old saying: "If you
can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with
bulls--t.
Mr. Libby wrote:
> Now that we have the picture straight, it's easy to see
> why middle class greys would hate EEO - they lose under H1
> and H2-b.
The Author, feeling the need to straighten things out,
responds:
The middle class greys lose the most under case H2 (and
beyond), and this is the reality with which they must contend.
Mr. Libby wrote:
> Are there any other possible courses of action? What
> would happen if the employee class formed a union and
> held out for higher wages, or to put it differently,
> what if the middle-class greys refused to accept wage
> cuts?
The Author now responds:
It should not be necessary for you to even pose this
question. The overwhelming evidence provides the answers.
Labor unions have only served to stir up the impetus for
employers to shut down operations in the U.S. and
export them along with jobs to foreign countries where
coolie wages prevail. If members of the middle class
refuse to accept wage cuts, they are either euphemistically
downsized or forced to take early retirement. The employers
have very strong bargaining chips not the least of which
is that they know their employees have nowhere else to go
as wages are being downwardly equalized everywhere.
(I need not repeat the presentation of hypothetical case
H-3 - Labor Monopoly - when there is no such thing as a
"Labor Monopoly" what with all of the Third World labor
alternatives that employers have at their disposal.)
Mr. Libby wrote:
> In my opinion, the great challenge that lies ahead is to
> find the balance between equality...
The Author responds:
I do believe I already posted that when A is not equal
to B, setting A equal to B is a major violation of logic,
mathematics, science, etc. To intimate that equality
is a desirable thing when it is a highly illogical thing
with disastrous consequences is the utmost ___ (I can't
even think of a word and still remain dignified).
Mr. Libby, you foist oh so much sophistry on the reading
public, and you oh so conveniently neglect to consider that
there are tons of empirical evidence to support my premise
while this same evidence vitiates your premises.
Prior to equal employment opportunity (EEO) and other
forms of government enforced equality, the United
State somehow managed to become the number one country
in the world by a large margin, and it was the envy
of all other peoples. The U.S. at that time had the
highest wage levels in the world, and the lesser preferred
job candidates in the U.S. made no effort to seek out
better deals in other countries because there were no
better deals to be had. The best deals were right here!
Moreover, we had low crime rates and high educational
and societal standards.
Now, after EEO and other forms of government enforced
equality, we have skyrocketing crime, declining educational
and societal standards, astronomical governmental deficit
spending, lost competitiveness with ever mounting trade
deficits, record breaking consumer debt, government
sanctioned vice (namely gambling), a decaying infra-
structure which includes the oldest fleet of commercial
aircraft, insanity at epidemic proportions, dysfunctionality
in many markets (not the least significant of which are the
real estate and health care markets), more homelessness than
during the Great Depression, the most obese population of
any country (and growing by the minute), ghettos sinking into
abject despair, and declining real wages which are far from
being the highest in the world. Now we have the preferred job
candidates fleeing to foreign countries for better wage
prospects. Foreign employment of Americans, in case you are
unaware, is way, way up. My, my what sociological inversions
the equality laws have ushered in.
The apportionment of the federal debt to each and every U.S.
household now exceeds $66,000. If you were to take the
federal debt and add in all the state, local, and personal
debt and calculate per capita net worth for each American,
you would probably see that an American is worse off than a
Haitian. If the economy collapses, then assets values will
drop like a rock while debt obligations will remain constant,
so your calculation of per capita net worth will be much,
much worse.
Mr. Libby, how in the world can you, in the face of all of
the above evidence that the country is growing poorer and
poorer, still promote a line of reasoning that makes a feeble,
failing attempt to demonstrate otherwise?
Mr. Libby, you seem to have made a lot of self-serving
statements in your presentations. You know, I mentioned in
the treatise that there are certain individuals who are
benefiting from the downward economic and societal spiral
in which the U.S. finds itself due to government enforced
equality. These individuals will go right down to the mat
fighting to retain the institutions that insure their wealth
and position NO MATTER how vile those institutions may be.
They will not even have the least bit of loyalty to their own
kind who may be suffering terribly under those same institutions,
and this is exactly the kind of thing we see under the regimes
of typical Third World countries and cities such as East
St. Louis.
Mr. Libby, take my advice: save yourself further embarrass-
ment, and GIVE IT UP!
Here is a historical fact: most wars have been fought
because of economic motivations.
And another note: The Germans of today do not at all fit
the personality profile of Nazi Germany, but bear in mind
that at the time of Nazi Germany, that country faced dire
economic straits. It's amazing how the prospect of a little
starvation can turn everyday people a wee bit nasty!
So, Mr. Libby, you can B.S. as much as you want, but your
B.S'ing will do nothing to change the undefined consequences
when the final economic statistics manifest themselves.
If anyone would like a free email copy of the multipart
treatise on the downward wage equalizing effects of
equal employment opportunity, send a brief request to:
na716472@anon.penet.fi DO NOT USE THE REPLY feature
of your software! Please compose a new, ONE LINE request
and send to: na716472@anon.penet.fi
"Government enforced wage equalization will work only in the
downward direction" - despite any initial appearance to the
contrary! And the most shocking thing of all is that the least
preferred job candidate doesn't even have to be awarded a job
for many phenomena to take place!
--****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--***ATTENTION***
Your e-mail reply to this message WILL be *automatically* ANONYMIZED.
Please, report inappropriate use to abuse@anon.penet.fi
For information (incl. non-anon reply) write to help@anon.penet.fi
If you have any problems, address them to admin@anon.penet.fi
|