Conference back40::soapbox

One of my recently relocated co-worker's sayings:

You need a Phd. in trickery.

Bravo for the Indians, Russians, and everyone else who is willing to compete
for my $$$$.

And for you whiners, get real!   Show me any consumer of any product that does
not *desire* the highest quality for the lowest price and I'll show you a
profligate spender.  If ACME can build better software and a lower-price
because a Russian is willing and able to work for less, then great.

/mtp

    Why import programmers?
        	
    Are there no Satellites?
    Are there no phone lines?
    
    Telecommuting advantage, earn $8000 and live in a country where its
    a lot of money.

    It's illegal, and Digital has been caught before:
    
    Jan 11, 1994 Boston Globe
    
    "DEC pays $45,000 in wages, fines
     Department of Labor said Digital Equipment Corporation has agreed to
     pay more than $45,000 in back wages and fines for violating immigration
     laws by underpaying 24 foreign workers.  The Maynard-based computer
     company also has agreed not to participate for three months in the
     H1-B program, under which US companies can bring in foreign workers
     temporarily for hard-to-fill jobs - in this case, computer
     programming."
     
    FWIW, one of the requirements for an H1-B visa is that their
    "employment will not adversely affect the working conditions of
    workers similiarly employed", but that didn't stop Digital from
    TFSO'ing programmers with similiar skills during this period.

re:.2

*Desire* is one thing.

*Destroying* people's lives and making a lie out of reward for achievement is
another.

I'll bet you'd see nothing wrong with people trampling over each other to get to
a Filene's basement sale.

Maybe we'll all become unscrupulous entrepreneurs and try to screw each other
through underpricing...or over-pricing if we can gain a monopoly. Then, we can
lament violence in television and movies because it's destroying our moral fiber.

Yep...makes sense to me.

    The fact that it is illegal for a company to do all that it can to
    produce it's products at the lowest cost shows that something is wrong
    in the United States of America, very wrong.
    
    ...Tom

                      <<< Note 499.3 by MIMS::WILBUR_D >>>


>    Why import programmers?
 
	It's in the programmer's interest. They will work for
	this kind of money in order to get a green card. This
	and five years will get you naturalization papers.

	One VERY large maker of PC BIOS has been operating this
	way for years.

Jim

re:.6

Yeah, somethings wrong alright.

Let's make things Right like they Used To Be.

Say, about 1619 A.D. (or earlier if possible).

    >Let's make things Right like they Used To Be.
    
    >Say, about 1619 A.D. (or earlier if possible).
    
    Huh??

re:Why import programmers?

They make terrific ottomans?

re:9 Huh?

I thought so.

(How quickly they forget.) ;~}

    Forgive me, I was very young at the time!!   :)
    
    
    ...TOm

1619 A.D. was about the time another famous event of cheap labor importation
occurred...was well underway in fact.

I take it those respondents so far who support such practices are either very
secure in their positions or are well prepared to shift should the need arise.
Probably ready to take advantage of the next labor trend, I'll wager.  

 Hey, you know what else 1619AD is?




 906 years before the year 2525!

In the year 2525...

If Man is Still Alive,

If Woman Can Survive They May Find....

In the Year 3535...Ain't gonna need to tell the truth, tell no lies...

 

You Get What You Pay For.

    ----everything you think, do and say, is it the pill you took today!

...but I ain't swallowin' any of this hogswallop.

Besides, think about that pill...manufactured by little peasant children at
midnight on some work farm somewhere...exhausted, half starved...earning $.03
a day...Oh that's O.K.! I can get a bottle of 100 for 2 bucks at the corner
drugstore.

    where is my violin when I need it??   :)
    
    ...Tom
    

Obviously the symbolism is lost on you.

    I rely on facts, not symbolism. I'm just like that.
    
    ...Tom

    Translation: I require being pounded over the head with a 2x4 for
    several hours before I start to catch on.

    
    > ... or are well prepared to shift should the need arise.
    > Probably ready to take advantage of the next labor trend, I'll wager.  

    We must ALL be prepared to shift occupations should the need arise, and
    it will.  It's in your own best interest.  You would have to be a fool
    to learn how to do only one thing and expect it to provide for you for
    your life time.  The "company" will not provide for you, regardless if
    who the company is DEC, GE, or anyone else.  You must fend for yourself 
    and your family.

    Dan

Those of you shedding tears for the poor need to be reminded that making it
expensive for me to hire unemployed and poor workers, who otherwise want to
work, removes my incentive to do so, and has the contrary effect of establishing
an arbitrary and economically enforced class boundary.

I recommend two insightful works to those of you who believe that protectionism
and paternalism is an appropriate way to express our compassion and sensitivity
for the poor of other nations:

	Adam Smith, "The Wealth of Nations".
	Martin Olasky, "The Tragedy of American Compassion".

Regards,

/mtp

"The right to suffer is one of the joys of a free economy".

-- Howard Pyle, aide to President Eisenhower, commenting on the unemployment
situation in Detroit.

    
    "Liberals don't have to solve any problems, they just have to
    emote"
    
    Rush L.

>    "Liberals don't have to solve any problems, they just have to
>    emote"
    
>    Rush L.

That's a beaut, that is. Heavy, as we used to say. With profundity like 
that, it's no wonder he has such a following.

Tom

Hey rah! I'm working...knock wood...ain't I parta the solution?

    Okay how about this one...
    
    
    Liberals are useful idiots!
    
    Vlademire Lenin

    
    ...VLADEMIRE?  Sounds like some sort of swamp gas.
    
    Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, please.  a/k/a Lenin.

    Whatever comrade sweetyheart!!!

You know you've singed 'sensitivities' when a communist is quoted in _this_ here
'box as an attempt to discredit your position. A ruthless dictator at that.
Talk about Freudian slips.

Regardless of the tired ad hominem attacks from the peanut (or "cocoanut")
gallery, the fact remains that there is a serious ideological gap in society,
when persons engage in exploitation to further selfish, greedy motives, then
berate those who refuse to play.

What's even scarier is that this behavior is condoned by a significant portion
of the same people who tout "family values" and rage for more, bigger, better
prisons, swift death penalties, etc. Those who would prey upon the innocent
using an actual weapon receive (righteously IMHO) castigation while those that
prey with a briefcase are lauded as "winners" (unrighteously, IMHO).

Greed is a destroyer of society. It doesn't matter whether it's on the corner
or in the board room. And it most definitely leads to other dysfunctional
behaviors which worsen the misery of all.  It comes down to a fundamental lack
of faith in ideologies which is if not a step away, then assuredly not too far
from their total dissolution. I don't think a differentiation has been firmly
established between 'competition' and 'greed'.

Another good example of this is an article I read in last Sunday's Globe,
entitled (paraphrased) "Atlanta Landlords go for Olympic gold". It detailed how
landlord's are trying to displace tenants by jacking their rent up hundreds or
even thousands of dollars to cash in on the premium tourist trade expected for
the Olympics to be held in Georgia next summer. To be sure, that's just one
tactic they're using. Those who hold the Property Right on par with the Ten
Commandments would probably see nothing wrong with this. It's the same thing.

    
    re: -1

    > You know you've singed 'sensitivities' when a Communist is quoted in 
    > _this_ here 'box as an attempt to discredit your position. A ruthless 
    > dictator at that.

    Hey, if the shoe fits...

    > ... the fact remains that there is a serious ideological gap in society,
    > when persons engage in exploitation to further selfish, greedy motives, 
    > then berate those who refuse to play.

    I'm sorry, I missed your point in this statement.  Who's berating whom?

    > those that prey with a briefcase are lauded as "winners"
    > (unrighteously, IMHO).

    So, making a profit is wrong?

    > Greed is a destroyer of society. 

    Can you back this up with facts, or is this an opinion?

    > And it most definitely leads to other dysfunctional behaviors which 
    > worsen the misery of all.

    Such as....

    > It comes down to a fundamental lack of faith in ideologies which is 
    > if not a step away, then assuredly not too far from their total 
    > dissolution. 

    Sorry again, but this one went right over me.  Please explain.

    > I don't think a differentiation has been firmly established between 
    > 'competition' and 'greed'.

    Would you like to propose one?

    > Another good example of this is an article I read in last Sunday's Globe,
    > entitled (paraphrased) "Atlanta Landlords go for Olympic gold".

    A well know balanced newspaper....

    > It detailed how landlord's are trying to displace tenants by jacking 
    > their rent up hundreds or even thousands of dollars to cash in on the 
    > premium tourist trade expected for the Olympics to be held in Georgia 
    > next summer.

    Would it bother you if said tenants were sub-letting their apartments
    to make a profit off of someone else's property?

    Dan

>Note 499.34 DEVLPR::DKILLORAN "It ain't easy, bein' sleezy!"
				^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	Hard Work...that good ol' Puritan Work Ethic...
    
>Hey, if the shoe fits...

	Stick it?

>> ... the fact remains that there is a serious ideological gap in society,
>> when persons engage in exploitation to further selfish, greedy motives, 
>> then berate those who refuse to play.

>I'm sorry, I missed your point in this statement.  Who's berating whom?

	Hey! He said 'sorry' ! I thought he was fitting shoes...

	{quote} They should learn to speak English if they intend to live in
	this country.{unquote}

>> those that prey with a briefcase are lauded as "winners"
>> (unrighteously, IMHO).

>So, making a profit is wrong? 

	See previous quote.

>> Greed is a destroyer of society. 

>Can you back this up with facts, or is this an opinion?

	Yes.

>> And it most definitely leads to other dysfunctional behaviors which 
>> worsen the misery of all.

>Such as....

	The creation of Barney.

>> It comes down to a fundamental lack of faith in ideologies which is 
>> if not a step away, then assuredly not too far from their total 
>> dissolution. 

>Sorry again, but this one went right over me.  Please explain.

	Hey! He used the "magic word"! He's being _nice_ again!
	Are you emulating the Multi-Personality-One or what?

	Ok here's an example.

	I never understood the punk rock movement, until I had the opportunity
	to read an article in (you guessed it, that bastion of Liberalism)
	the Globe, on perspectives of the Bomb.

	A Lack of Faith, Cynicism, produced all that (IMHO) god-awful music,	
	Rainbow-dyed hair, slam-dancing...

	Here's another one: Florence and Normandie, 1992.

>> I don't think a differentiation has been firmly established between 
>> 'competition' and 'greed'.

>Would you like to propose one?

	So you can ridicule it? Hey, I've been a boxer for 11 years. I know now
	that generally speaking the subjects and content herein serves (for me
	at least) n basic purposes:

		1. Source of alternative information.

		2. Sounding board.

	Anything else is fortuitous.

	The effect of notes are like a scatter gun (a metaphor that's probably
	near and dear). RO's (not <r.o.>'s ) outnumber RW/WO's and perhaps
	someone with receptors open will get it.

	After all these years, with all the personalities that have come and
	gone I know noting predominantly resembles an activity you don't do
	according to Jim Croce's famous song.

	That's one reason why I haven't changed my personal_name in several
	years...and likely won't.

	Anyhow, far be it from me to define mores. That's a parents' job. After
	that, we're on our own...

>> Another good example of this is an article I read in last Sunday's Globe,
>> entitled (paraphrased) "Atlanta Landlords go for Olympic gold".

>A well know balanced newspaper....

	"Well known". (-- but you knew that.) NNTTM.

>> It detailed how landlord's are trying to displace tenants by jacking 
>> their rent up hundreds or even thousands of dollars to cash in on the 
>> premium tourist trade expected for the Olympics to be held in Georgia 
>> next summer.

>Would it bother you if said tenants were sub-letting their apartments
>to make a profit off of someone else's property?

	What a co-inky-dink! That's _exactly_ one of the other methods the
	landlords are using...Forcing tenants to sub-let.

	Did the article bother you too?

	(And in any event it's very simple to preclude such a practice...
	simply specify in lease. You know...that thing that sets up a 
	*mutual agreement*. Novel concept, eh?)

    
    <------------
    
    Excuse me, but could you repeat that?  In English this time.
    

    
    Don, when I'm interested in your opinion, I'll ask you.

    I was attempting to get the note repeated in a coherent form.

    Dan
    

>    Don, when I'm interested in your opinion, I'll ask you.

	boy, are you in the wrong forum! 

    
    Don, are you particularly pleased with yourself?  You remind me of a
    four year old....
    
    Now go to your room so the adults can talk...
    

    Killoran, you are definitely barking up the wrong tree.  You've proven
    too many times in this August forum - and in the June, July, and
    probably others - that your command of English isn't a patch on that of
    Mr. Topaz.  That you can't understand something does not automatically
    mean that that something is not written clearly; it means only that you
    are suffering from yet another bout of comprehension deficiency.

    
    That's very interesting Mr. Binder.....
    It is also an opinion.  Please go play with Don will you.
    

    
      Whether "greed" is "a destroyer of society" seems a more or
     less pointless question.  It is like asking if "corrosion" is
     "a destroyer of automobiles".  Greed as a motive in humans is
     inevitable.  Wisely constructed societies ASSUME all humans will
     be greedy, and prepare for the consequences.  The US Constitution's
     authors very clearly did this, and both Franklin and Madison wrote
     about this specifically.  For John Adams, it was central to our
     species.  For JA, it was axiomatic that all accomplishment would
     result in resentment from one's fellow citizens.
    
      A worker wishes to be paid MORE than his labor would be worth in
     any open market.  Sellers HATE competition, and workers are sellers.
     Similarly, any employer wishes to underpay, since employers are
     just buyers.  There is nothing you can do about these MOTIVES.
     But you CAN decide the rules of the game : combination, collusion,
     deception, etc.  In the long run, there is almost no way to coerce
     a non-market rate for much of anything, as either buyers or sellers
     will find a way to circumvent any rules you make.
    
      bb

>>    That's very interesting Mr. Binder.....
>>    It is also an opinion.  Please go play with Don will you.

    it's an opinion that's shared.  but don't feel too bad - not
    too many people in here have a command of the language that
    rivals that of mr. topaz.
    

    
    irony [adj] 1: of, seasoned with, or containing iron; tasting of iron
    

    Inhale, Don. Inhale!

    I just hate seeing you turn bluish.

It's a little known fact that topaz can indeed be blue.

    
    OOO ERR!
    

    Blue on blue,
    Heartache on heartache.

    dick-
    
    i'm going to have to beat you now. yes, yes--until you are black and
    blue.  serves you right, too.

    
    re: .44
    
    Thank you.  That was a very well written piece.  A refreshing change.
    

re.44 (bb)

You weren't in any way responsible for my last review, were you?

    
      No, sorry.  We have a "competitive benefit and compensation package",
     haven't you heard ?
    
      bb

re: bb >  haven't you heard ?

I heard this:
 
Note 393.642 -< Just my opinion... >-
*
*
*
    
   >My preferred defense to crime is poverty.  This works, and Digital
   >co-operates with this strategy.

   >As a conservative, I instinctively resist changing our way of life.

    
      Digital, coming out of its wage-freeze mentality, is now experiencing
     a wild review environment.  Some areas of the company are reputedly
     gaining substantial wage increases, some are hiring with wild
     abandon, others are decreasing budgets, deferring raises, or even
     reducing their headcount.  You can't defer inevitable expenses
     forever when the rest of the industry isn't.  I think all of us,
     whether lucky or not, will perceive unfairness this year.
    
      I have this grim premonition that our recovery will stall because
     expenses start rising again, leading to a second, smaller, but still
     possibly fatal debacle.
    
      bb

  .59  how unlike you to have a grim premonition, dear. ;>

    
      Every silver lining has a cloud.
    
      bb

     Whenever gawd closes a door, somewhere else he slams a window shut...
        
        

    ... or slides a door on a cat...
    

    
    re: .62
    
    >Whenever gawd closes a door, somewhere else he slams a window shut...
    
    Careful the glass don't break outa the window and cuts some poor little
    kitty...
    

    Salary increases huh???
    
    Re: my group.....
    
    
    Ataaaaack speed...boom boom boom boom..
    
    
    Raaammming Speed....Boom.boom boom boom....
    
    
    
    YOU ARE ALL CONDEMNED MEN...WE KEEP YOU ALIVE..
    
    
    
    TO SERVE THIS SHIP.......
    
    
    
    SO ROW WELL......
    
    
    
    AND LIVE!

    
    
    Well, that was worth the gazillion form feeds.....

Hey Mike, that was pretty funny!

Don't worry bb, I'm comin' for more debunking of your .44...

    
      Don't debunk till ya seez the whites of their eyes.  Anywhaze,
     Guillermo, you were saying about "fair" markets.  But there's at
     least two views to that - the buyer's vs. the seller's.  The buyer
     sees value where there's utility AND scarcity.  If buyers are not
     restrained and are fully informed, all items reach a "market" price,
     and that includes tomatoes, Alpha workstations, workers, and common
     stock.  But to a seller, value is cost, the sum of input materials
     and any value added by labor.  The trouble with the seller's view,
     that a "fair price" must cover "fair costs", is that value added is
     probabilistic.  It is quite possible to work hard on something and
     then be unlucky, so that no utility/uniqueness results.  Does the labor
     have negative value in that case ?  Generally speaking, in the USA, we
     go with the buyer's view, the so-called free-market theory (other
     places have tried the cost model).   So a "fair price" is unrelated
     to costs - if utility declines given a change in the economic
     environment, or scarcity declines because a vast population of "C"
     programmers are discovered in Papua New Guinea, the value of a
     software engineer could fall drastically in days, even though he is
     all-the-while perfecting his coding skills.  The theory says this
     would be GOOD, indicating efficient dissemination of competitive
     information, and maximal benefit to buyers, who can now buy the
     software engineer's output for a mere pittance.
    
      bb

re:.61

Paranoia Big Destroy-ah...

(Da, da-da...) An' it goes like This....

Well, if this country was based solely on containing Man's Evil nature a la
Hobbes, I doubt it would have attained any of the history it has. Those who
immigrated here were seeking hope, not containment.

The essence of this country's ideology is the maintainance and enhancement
of the Dignity of Human Beings.

Every event in our history, whether technological or social, has more or less
moved toward that ideal. People's passions to defend this country are stirred
by the appeal to Freedom, not solace of being governed by "the devil you
know".

>      Whether "greed" is "a destroyer of society" seems a more or
>     less pointless question.  It is like asking if "corrosion" is
>     "a destroyer of automobiles".

It's not a question. It's a statement. And I would not be so quick to dismiss
that statement as rhetorical. You'd be surprised how people rationalize
certain behaviors.

For example, technology being what it is, is redefining the concept of
"Vacation". The U.S., already one of the countries with the least amount of
vacation time for employees, is experiencing a phenomenon where employees bring
PC's, modems, faxes, notebooks, cellular phones, along with the wife, kiddies,
and dog, to their place of re-wax-a-shun (heh heh heh heh heh) so that they
can stay connected with their job.

Some do this to maintain an image of concern, others fear they may be left out
of the "loop".

Meanwhile, where's the "vacation"?

Tobacco companies have made stellar leaps of logic to justify use of their
product.

The Black Rage defense is another example of exaggeration.

	> Greed as a motive in humans is inevitable.

Collectively speaking. But it is not the esssential nature of human beings IMO.

	>  Wisely constructed societies ASSUME all humans will be greedy, and 
	>  prepare for the consequences.

In Your Opinion. It's all in one's interpretation of greed isn't it? After all
the Manifest Destiny was entitled as conceived. 

"ALL" "Wisely constructed" societies? There are societies which operate on
trust and sharing. Some would call them "primitive", others call them
"idyllic".

	> The US Constitution's authors very clearly did this, and both Franklin
	> and Madison wrote about this specifically.  For John Adams, it was
	> central to our species.  For JA, it was axiomatic that all
	> accomplishment would result in resentment from one's fellow citizens.

In Their HOs. And once again we are confronted with semantics. Accomplishment
has broad meaning. I choose to focus on the more idealistic tenets.

This country was founded in part on a rejection of economic extortion (No
taxation without representation).

The Preamble states :
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, 
***establish Justice***, ***insure domestic Tranquility***, ***provide for the
common defence***, ***promote the general Welfare***, and secure the Blessings
of Liberty to ourselves  and our Posterity, do ordain and establish the
Constitution for the United States of America.

(stars mine).

Those tenets were formulted from negative experiences to be sure, but their
purpose is what I stated at the beginning. Else, why not just enumerate the
rights and purviews of the Government?

	> A worker wishes to be paid MORE than his labor would be worth in
	> any open market.  Sellers HATE competition, and workers are sellers.
	> Similarly, any employer wishes to underpay, since employers are just 
	> buyers.

It seems to me that the _issue_ as discussed in .0 is whether it is fair and
ethical to a.) Devalue the worth of an individual by devaluing the worth of
other individuals. and b.) does it benefit business, and society in the end
result. 

I really think your definition is much too narrow. 

	> There is nothing you can do about these MOTIVES.

Being the tenacious lot we are some sure will try won't they? Sometimes with
catastrophic results...

     	> But you CAN decide the rules of the game : combination, collusion,
     	> deception, etc.

How Machiavellian...

And another thing, I mean, doesn't it strike anyone as the least bit...
contradictory...that any company would downsize its workers, employ these
underpaid, mal-treated employees, yet stress ethics to a point where an office
and titles are created to monitor it?

	> In the long run, there is almost no way to coerce
    	> a non-market rate for much of anything, as either buyers or sellers
	> will find a way to circumvent any rules you make.

I foresee a tremendous disruption.

Since you're using these economic models to, I presume justify the actions in
.0, then If we have a Consumer Affairs Division, a Better Business Beaureau,
an Attorney General to protect us from cons in other areas, then by god we
should be protected in the work place as well.
 

re:.68
> Ya don't get it

I get it.

I don't Want It.

> Don't debunk till ya seez the whites of their eyes.

Like Crispus Attucks...I'm standing on "common" ground...

My my, such impressive economic rhetoric which breaks down the "reality".
One wonders when you'll cite the Law of Diminishing Returns...

It's amusing because it's so diametrically juxtaposed to the platitudes usually
intoned by those of your persuasion.

>Anywhaze, Guillermo, you were saying about "fair" markets.  But there's at
> least two views to that - the buyer's vs. the seller's. 

What about the consensus? We're not making transactions in a vacuum.

Besides in the scenario described in .0 the "buyer" usually "returns" what
they've been "sold" for something cheaper without regard to _any_ "return
policy".

>The buyer sees value where there's utility AND scarcity.  If buyers are not
> restrained 

You get situations like that described in .0

> all items reach a "market" price, and that includes tomatoes, Alpha
> workstations, workers, and common stock.

One of these things is not like the other, one of these things doesn't
belong...

Go with me on this bb: A _worker_ is not a tomato, or an Alpha workstation
(though Some employers may _think_ workers are like common (live) stock).

A worker is a human being. Human beings give more to a business than just
their "labor"...it is the quality of their labor that insures the success of
that business. That quality is markedly higher if their morale is similarly
high. We've seen what happens in those "other places" you allude to, when it
isn't.

The plain fact is: if workers had leverage (which they're beginning to get in
some measure or other) they can affect the tilt.
All those inanimate objects you so cavalierly lump them (yourself?) with don't
have that option.

We already have serious deficits in industries where people feel they will not
be rewarded for the effort they make: there's a shortage of scientists,
teachers...where will it end?

I understand psychology and social work is becoming a boom industry though...

> But to a seller, value is cost, the sum of input materials and any value
> added by labor.  The trouble with the seller's view, that a "fair price"
> must cover "fair costs", is that value added is probabilistic.
> It is quite possible to work hard on something and then be unlucky, so that
> no utility/uniqueness results. 

What is this??? Do my eyes DECEIVE me?!? A conservative referring to...LUCK?!?!?
I'm gonna save this!

Doesn't that violate your creed against mysticism or sump'm? I mean, how can
one have Personal Responsibility if they're at the mercy of the Fates?

On the serious tip, I understand what you're saying, though my
ever-trustworthy cynicism has a tendency to broaden the scope of probability
to perception vs. actuality. I have personal experience in this area. I work
for Digital. I've been "lucky" before. (And in most every case, politics was
the factor).

Still, I don't see how this allows an employer in good conscience to discard
employees who are performing their duties (well) or hire employees who are
basically between a rock and a hard place. You should hear about the contracts
these foreign workers are under. The damn contracts make it hard to _quit_!

>Does the labor have negative value in that case ? 

Well we all know how much some want us to believe that hard work is its own
reward.

>Generally speaking, in the USA, we go with the buyer's view, the so-called
> free-market theory (other places have tried the cost model).

Generally speaking, I see shifting alliances. The "other places" I suppose
you're referring to is The former USSR? Well, their morale dampened too, didn't
it?

Hasn't setting prices by certain (artificial?) methods given consequences
such as The Great Depression? (Or at the very least, government subsidy, which
has been "grate" for our economy).

> So a "fair price" is unrelated to costs - if utility declines given a change
> in the economic environment, or scarcity declines because a vast population
> of "C" programmers are discovered in Papua New Guinea, the value of a
> software engineer could fall drastically in days, even though he is
> all-the-while perfecting his coding skills.  The theory says this
> would be GOOD, indicating efficient dissemination of competitive
> information, and maximal benefit to buyers, who can now buy the software
> engineer's output for a mere pittance.

Well, you've inspired me to look into these theories further. Among my starting
points will be some information I came across re the Wall St. Journal for 7/5.
Statistics reported for Fortune 500 companies that downsized in recent years:

		33%  - no improvement in profitability
		(67% must have improved...but as we know that's not necessarily
		an indication of more efficient resources)

		62%  - no improvement in productivity
		(38% must have improved, I wonder how, for how long, etc.)

		86% are dealing with significant workforce morale issues
		as a result of the increase workloads of the survivors.
		(14% are blissful.)

This and other things bear some investigation.

Let me leave you with one more anecdote.

I remember my uncle's experience as a security guard in a major N.Y. Hospital
during the strike 7 or 8 years ago. Bodies were piling up in the morgue,
laundry went undone, the kitchens were silent, the sanitary conditions were
deteriorating.

He told me that the doctors who used to snub him, became quite friendly and
chummy when they had to cross those picket lines.

You never know what you miss until it's gone.

    Eliminate minimum wage -- would fix a lot of what's wrong with the
    economy and would eliminate a lot of poverty.

    
      re, Guillermo.  We're not as far apart as you think.  Consider DEC.
     Passing on the PC, the VAX9000, the MIPS decision, etc, etc.  Cost
     our stockholders billions, sent the managers who made the bonehead
     decisions off to "pursue other interests", sent half the participants
     in this file (and Digits generally) off to flip burgers.  Bad
     decisions, bad luck, but I don't think laziness.  These people worked
     VERY HARD to lose all that money and market share, and they boasted
     at how effectively they led us all way down the tubes, from which
     we have at least now halted the slide, to try again, smaller and
     wiser.  This process is real and brutal, and I join you in seeing
     it as fundamentally unfair.  Where we differ, I suppose, is in
     thinking the government can "fix" this.  I guess it was an Act of God.
     Where did we sin ?  Education comes from failures.  We don't like
     it, but it is healthy that tragic hubris meets its nemesis.  At least
     those of us who are left are now VERY aware of the price of error.
    
      bb

    
    re:.71
    GUILLERMO,
    
    > ...it is the quality of their labor that insures the success of 
    > that business. 

    Hardly, even the best workers doing the best job will not succeed if
    the product is bad.  The quality of their labor that promotes their 
    continued employment, and that's about it.

    > The plain fact is: if workers had leverage (which they're beginning to 
    > get in some measure or other) they can affect the tilt. 

    And you propose that this is necessarily a good thing?  Think about a
    ship that is being sailed completely by the crew.  I see no way to make
    this work.  You MUST have some person making the decisions as to
    where to direct the ship.

    > You should hear about the contracts these foreign workers are under. 
    > The damn contracts make it hard to _quit_!

    You of course have proof of this which your going to enter right?

    > >Generally speaking, in the USA, we go with the buyer's view, the so-called
    > > free-market theory (other places have tried the cost model).
    > 
    > Generally speaking, I see shifting alliances. The "other places" I suppose
    > you're referring to is The former USSR? Well, their morale dampened too, didn't
    > it?

    There was no way for the workers to be paid any more, so why work hard?

re:.73
>Where we differ, I suppose, is in thinking the government can "fix" this.

Ultimately the answer is in each and every one of us. Given a choice I prefer we
work out among ourselves. Is that realistic?

    
    
    I think it is, Brandon.  Remember, there are still more folks who want
    to work together than want to tear apart.
    
    
    Mike

You're right Mike.

They're called "Unions". ;-)

    >They're called "Unions".
    
     <guffaw!> I didn't know you did stand-up, Brandon.

	Who's giving away a free Enterprise???? I'd like one to take a spin
around the galaxy......

    
    > They're called "Unions". ;-)
    
    That's one of the funniest notes I've seen in the 'box!  Mark, you
    think he's serious?
    

    >Mark, you think he's serious?
    
     Give the man some credit.

Down Doc!

    
    
    What's all this talk about onions bringing people together?  I thought
    onions gave you bad breath and made people want to stay away from you?