Re: Illegal Immigration: Why the Gov't Looks the Other Way
na716472@anon.penet.fi
Fri, 20 Sep 1996 21:07:56 -0500
In article <dlibby.220.000B016E@facstaff.wisc.edu>,
dlibby@facstaff.wisc.edu (Donald L. Libby) wrote:
> This appears to be a contradiction.
The Author Responds:
How else would a portrayal of mismanagement appear? The buzz word
of choice these days is "dysfunctionality." How else would a
portrayal of dysfunctionality appear?
The Donald wrote:
> If protectionism and tarriffs prop
> wages up, and politicians want to avoid lowering wages, then they should
> have voted to maintain protectionism and tariffs rather than supporting
> NAFTA and GATT. Are you suggesting that the "real" reason they supported
> NAFTA and GATT is to cover-up wage declines by lowering the cost of living
> to keep pace with falling wages?
The Author responds:
I think you got the point of the posting. Why are you bothering to
ask? One correction is in order. The cost of living is not really
being lowered. If it were, then real wages would be increasing.
Real wages are decreasing. The government, while not lowering the
the cost of living, is applying as much downward pressure on the
costs of living that it can.
The Donald wrote:
> Don't you understand that it is
> illogical for them to institute a policy that lowers wages in order to
> conteract a policy that lowers wages? Your reasoning is seriously flawed.
The Author responds:
Illogical? Not in the least! It is quite logical for politicians
who are serving their own interests as opposed to the general welfare
to follow the path of least resistance and "buy" the votes of the
populace who think they are getting something for nothing when in
fact they are getting nothing AT A VERY GREAT PRICE!
The Donald's reasoning is seriously flawed.
The Donald wrote:
> There is no good reason for politicians to repeal EEO - they don't support
> it out of fear, they support it out of reason: it is valuable to our
> society.
The Author responds:
Dream on. Let's do a quickie cost/benefit analysis on government
enforced equality.
You know, the government went into great debt to provide economic
stimulation to sustain wage levels under equal employment opportunity
(EEO). If you do a cost/benefit analysis of EEO with the federal
debt being one of the costs, and you balance that against all of the
benefit derived from the alleged contributions of the so-called
protected minorities, then the analysis would fail miserably because
the cost is astronomically high while the benefit compared to pre-EEO
times has actually gone NEGATIVE!!
The Donald wrote:
> your irrational hatred of EEO
> prevents you from making sense of these facts.
The Author responds:
Bad MIS-characterization.
The Donald wrote:
> Whose side are you on?
The Author responds to the Donald:
Not yours, and not Huey, Duey, or Lewy's either.
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
This treatise is chock-full of ideas for papers in
the areas of economics, political science, sociology,
psychology, management, law, etc.
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 believe it or not, the least preferred job
candidate doesn't even have to be awarded a job for many
phenomena to take place!
|