Re: Political Sci/Social Sci Term Paper Ideas Available
na716472@anon.penet.fi
Sat, 14 Sep 1996 09:29:58 -0500
In article <32382E67.41C67EA6@allan.org>, allan <allan@allan.org> wrote:
> so, women should accept less pay for doing the same work? why? should
> women also stay home barefoot, pregnant, greeting their husbands every
> evening with a warm dinner in one hand and a cold beer in the other??
> is that what you want?
The Author responds:
YES!! TO BOTH QUESTIONS!!
If a woman wishes to be an active participant in the work force and
she goes job shopping, that is, she goes seeking out the best offer of
employment, THAT IS, WHAT THE MARKET WILL BEAR FOR HER SERVICES, THAT
IS, WHAT THE HIGHEST BIDDING EMPLOYER IS WILLING TO PAY, then she would
be wise to accept unequal wages, for if she presses the point for equal
wages, she will not only depress the wages of men (including the wages
of her husband if she is married), but she will also bring down her own
wage earning potential! Read my treatise for the explanation.
Women who have been caught up in feminism not only have contributed
to declining standards in the work world including the standards of
verisimilitude and ethics, but their lack of a traditional homelife
has also contributed to a lower white birth rate which is less than
the replacement rate, thereby contributing to the extinction of the
white race.
It's really quite funny. The media is reporting that feminism is
breaking down, and a lot of reasonably successful professional women
are dropping out of the business world having "nothing left to prove,"
and they are now choosing a traditional homelife because this is what
they are now yearning for! (Gee, this, after all the damage has
been done!)
Allan wrote:
> also, could you please define the term least preferred job candidate, to
> this point you have not defined it in a manner that is clear to
> everyone?
The Author responds:
Actually I've done this before, but here goes again!
The "least preferred job candidate" is the person who:
1. is a composite of all the unpreferred but protected traits
under the equal employment opportunity (EEO) laws.
2. is capable of performing the tasks of a certain job. IN FACT,
THIS INDIVIDUAL MAY BE HIGHLY SKILLED!
3. carries no legal reason why he should be declined for a certain
job, and so the government will award him that job if he makes
a legal issue of the matter.
This is in contrast to the "least QUALIFIED job candidate" who is
least capable of performing the duties of a job, and so for this
reason, he may be legally denied this job.
In practicality, lesser preferred job candidates really do not
have to be a composite of all protected traits. No! Having a
subset of unpreferred but protected traits is enough to depress
wages drastically under the EEO/equal pay laws (EEO). Certain
employers disfavor certain traits while they are indifferent to
other traits, so each employer holds his own individual concept
for his least preferred job candidate, and employers will cross
equalize wages to the perceived value of the least preferred job
candidate per the concept of value of the lowest bidding employer
for *his* least preferred job candidate.
Here is an included USENET posting which has an example of the
dynamics of what is going on:
OK, first the premise, then the model, then the puzzling
question.
The Premise:
Employers under EEO will cross equalize wages to the per-
ceived value of the least preferred job candidate (within
job category) per the concept of value of the lowest bidding
employer.
Now for the model:
Assume there are three employers in an industry, A, B, and
C.
Employer A has an aversion to hiring dwarfs whom he values
at $.25 per hour. Employer A is indifferent to acne
sufferers and the morbidly obese.
Employer B has an aversion to hiring acne sufferers whom
he values at $.19 per hour. Employer B is indifferent to
dwarfs and the morbidly obese.
Employer C has an aversion to hiring the morbidly obese
whom he values at $.05 per hour. Employer C is indifferent
to dwarfs and acne sufferers.
Economic theory states that a buyer will pay less for
an item than it is worth to him, but he will NOT PAY
MORE for it than it is worth to him, so...
Employer A will drive down wages in his shop to $.25 per
hour so that he will not create for himself a legal lia-
bility to hire dwarfs at a price that is greater than the
perceived value of the dwarfs.
Employer B will drive down wages in his shop to $.19 per
hour so that he will not create for himself a legal lia-
bility to hire acne sufferers at a price that is greater
than the perceived value of the acne sufferers.
Employer C will drive down wages in his shop to $.05 per
hour so that he will not create for himself a legal lia-
bility to hire the morbidly obese at a price that is greater
than the perceived value of the morbidly obese.
Some of you may be wondering how employers go about driving
down wages. It's easy. Every other employer is doing it
under EEO, and workers have little, if any, options to seek
out better deals elsewhere. You don't even need collusion
among employers when you have EEO. (Bear in mind that the
process of driving down wages can take several decades as we
are seeing in reality.)
Now what happens? Since labor costs are a significant
component of total costs, employer C's payment of $.05 per
hour makes him the industry's low cost producer, and this
will start to be reflected in the selling prices of his
offerings. Then, in order to remain price competitive
with employer C, employers A and B must drive down their
wages to $.05 per hour!! Wages will be equalized to the
perceived value of the least preferred job candidate per
the concept of value of the lowest bidding employer according
to the downward wage equalizing mechanism of equal employ-
ment opportunity!
However, there is yet another factor to be taken into
account. It is the minimum wage law. The target wage of
$.05 per hour is less than the minimum wage, so employers
A, B AND C will either extinguish the jobs altogether or
they will export the jobs to Third World sweatshops where
they will care not who handles the work just as long as the
price is right! AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE SEEING
in reality with the ghetto dwellers suffering the most,
(see soon-to-be published book, _When Work Disappears_).
but take my word for it: EVERY MEMBER OF LABOR IS SUFFERING
AS WELL!!!
Now for the question:
Some of you may assert that even in the absence of EEO,
employers still have the motivation to drive down wages
in order to be the industry's low-cost producer. Yet
prior to EEO we did not see such a downward wage bidding
spiral. WHY NOT? [End of included USENET posting]
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
Hurry while the Penet remailer is still forwarding email
to the "na" form of addresses.
"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!
|