poli-sci@ucbvax.ARPA (05/17/85)
From: JoSH <JoSH@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Poli-Sci Digest Fri 17 May 85 Volume 5 Number 20
Contents: MOVE
Vietnam
Divestment
Comparable Worth
Driving
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 May 85 08:25:18 PDT
From: Richard Foy <foy@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
Subject: Philadelphia
The MOVE should bring out some interesting comments. I feel sorry for Mayor
Goode being black and having to make the decisions which he was presented with.
[I have several observations: In the clip from WCAU's camera-on-a-pole
it is obvious that the flames sprang up the instant after the blast,
a fact that Phil. officials were denying for at least a day afterward.
Secondly, it seems culpably negligent not to have turned the water cannons
back on for an hour after it started. Third, and this is a scoop for
Poli-Sci: A friend who lives in the area knows someone in the insurance
business there, who said that the city government was inquiring among
the companies as to which houses in the neighborhood had fire coverage,
*a week before the attack*.
--JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Tuesday, 14 May 1985 12:44-EDT
From: rrd@Mitre-Bedford
Subject: Vietnam
Re Hank Walker's message in Digest 18 on Harry Summer's l982 book on Vietnam.
It is too bad that Hank's knowledge of the SEAsia was doesn't go
back beyond the early 70's because that was the time the US had made
the decision to wind down and get out. The build-up started in
the spring and summer of 1965, although we started to beef up the
advisory effort in early l962. The Karnow book of a couple years ago,
the one which was used as the basis for the TV series on Vietnam,
except for a couple of spots where the author gets a bit emotional,
is a pretty comphrehensive treatment of the SEAsia bit, going back
to the beginnings of it all in WWII - the last war in which it was
our clear objective to WIN. (Anyone out there fail to understand
what "unconditional surrender" was supposed to have met?)
A few comments and nit noi's on Hank's remarks.
Summers has gained the reputation in the Army for being a forward thinker.
The US did not "violate all the rules of war" - as a matter of fact we
hamstrung ourselves trying to abide by the rules of war, a la the
Geneva conventions. What we did violate was most of the nine principles
of war spelled out by Karl von Clausewitz, especially the biggie
"OBJECTIVE" - spelled out in terms that everyone could understand.
For those of us who went to Vietnam, there was always a clear distinction
between VC and NVA, the latter being the nom de guerre for regular
forces from the North. (Of course, there were several breeds of VC, too.
There was the infrastructure, the rear services, and the combat forces.
Among the latter were local, provincial, and main force units.)
I, personally, agree with Summers that the press didn't lose the war -
but, I believe they did create the environment in which it was lost.
They created an environment in which it was difficult for the
political leadership to remain resolute.
It has been a couple of years since I read "On Strategy", but I
recall I had a basic hangup with it then and Hank's remarks brought
it back. The book deals mostly with the Army perspective of the
SEAsian conflict. All five of the uniformed services fought there,
from just about the first day to the last.
When I went to Vietnam the first time, as a young major, I thought
our goals were noble and just. I still think they were, but they
lacked substance in which to sink one's teeth. What was wrong with
the goals, as stated way back then, was they lacked the essential
ingredient - to WIN a victory, both political and military, that
was tangible.
A point of clarification - the COMUSMACV's, in order, were Harkins,
Westmoreland, Abrams, and Weyand. If memory serves me correctly,
they all served concurrently as COMUSARV - the commander of the Army
component in country.
I see nothing in the command relationship of COMUSMACV reporting
to CINCPAC that indicates that to be a "peacetime" relationship
as Hank suggests. In my view, there were three (or four if you
count Cambodia) wars going on out there - one in the North, one
in Laos, and one in South Vietnam. COMUSMAVC's principal job
was running the US side of the one in the South and insuring
that US forces didn't get crossways with the GVN forces running their
war on the same ground. CINCPAC's job was running the SEAsia sub-theater,
with the rest of his theater, and integrating SEasia operations into the whole.
In summary, I think Summer's book is a good analysis, but I think that
the Hank's out there would be ahead if they undertook a study of
a comprehensive history before delving into analyses, however good.
Seems like the ol' cart and horse routine.
Bob Darron at MITRE-BEDFORD
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 May 85 10:53:49 pdt
From: upstill%ucbdegas@Berkeley (Steve Upstill)
Subject: Re: divestment legal?
In response to the message questioning the legality of demands for
divestment: I speak as the husband of a consulting actuary. My wife
deals with public retirement boards as the main part of her work. The
issue of divestment from South Africa has been raised repeatedly over
the past few years. There is certainly a legal issue, particularly wrt
the public funds (in California, at least) in general and the UC Board
of Regents in particular: the law states explicitly that they are to
buy/sell only to maximize the profit of the pension fund. Furthermore,
the board members are, believe it or not, PERSONALLY LIABLE for any
losses incurred as a result of variance from this policy, in California.
There is a recent case supporting this. I'm not even sure good faith
has anything to do with it.
However, I would question the assumption that the stocks at issue here
(let's call them the PI, for politically incorrect, stocks, as opposed
to the PC stocks, with an appreciation for irony) are inherently more
profitable than more PC stocks. For example, there is a trust fund,
the Ready Assets trust, which explicitly deals only in PC issues, and
has a performance which is just as good as less restrained funds.
Secondly, it is not clear that PI stocks will continue to be a good
investment. If you think about it, you realize how incredibly clever
the issue of divestment is, in terms of a small number of people (call
them crazies if you like) having a great effect. They may force the
University of California to divest, maybe several hundred million
dollars worth. Suppose, as a result of these pressures, PI stocks
lose in demand. Then any retirement board which wishes to maximize
its return MUST divest, BY LAW. If you think a little further, you
realize that you don't even have to reduce the demand directly; all
you have to do is create the PERCEPTION that the demand is being
reduced, and the demand WILL be reduced. It's just the phenomenon
of investor panic. In this case, which seems more plausible by the
day, it's the retirement boards which don't divest which will be
liable.
At any rate, as a retirement board member, you don't even need
faith in the onset of this perception of desertion; all you need is
a reasonable belief that it will occur. And as I say, I think it's
getting more reasonable all the time. The issue is gathering this
moral cloud which is tainting all businesses with holdings in South
Africa (whether or not they attend to the Sullivan Principles or not,
unfortunately). What will happen next is anybody's guess.
Steve Upstill
[Oh, yeah, one other thing. A South African black living on Osage
(in Phillie) was quoted (on CBS) as saying "it's just like
South Africa". I'm expectantly waiting for the storm of protest
urging divestment in all companies that do business in Philidelphia...
--JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Tue 14 May 85 23:16:39-EDT
From: Bard Bloom <BARD@MIT-XX.ARPA>
Subject: Disinvestment
I've heard recently that South Africa is protecting itself against
disinvestment by nationalizing everything left by companies that
leave South Africa. If this is true, it sounds like a strong argument
against disinvestment (which is what S.Africa intended). They won't
necessarily lose the business; I daresay that third-country businesses
would be quite glad to buy the ex-U.S. plants and such, contributing
even more money to the South African state. Also, I rather doubt that
the workers in those plants would be covered by the Sullivan thing any more,
so they'd be worse off.
Any good counter-arguments?
-- Bard --
------------------------------
Date: 15 May 85 19:21 EDT
From: RMXJARTJ%CORNELLA.BITNET@Berkeley
Subject: In reply to King @ Kestrel.arpa letter of 09 May 1985
I would like to respond to Dick King's letter on "whose money is it, anyway?"
A good example regarding pension funds would be that of the NYCERS - New York
City [Employee Retirement System - I think]. The Board of Trustees of
NYCERS are charged with handling the money in a fiscally responsible fashion
- which means that a profit should be made.
NYCERS introduced an identical proxy issue at the annual meetings of both
Ford and General Motors in the past 2 weeks.
The assumption that Dick made was that other stocks are suboptimal investments
because they don't have an extension in South Africa. (that wasn't exactly it,
but the inference was there.)
My initial guess is that there are no court-related precedents dealing with
this issue. If there are, I'd be interested in knowing about them.
I would take issue with the statement that the brokerage fees for the turnover
of stocks plus the presumably lower rate of return would lessen one's pension.
First of all, in pension funds, brokerage fees are built into the system. If a
pension fund is going to dis-invest from companies doing business
in South Africa, it is going to do it slowly (or in whatever fashion it usually
does when it sells a stock.)
When it buys other securities, the main difference (I've found) is that they
have a higher risk - which means that you have to watch them closer - unlike
stocks like GM, IBM, etc. These type of securities also tend to be on the
Over-The-Counter exchange.
So, actually, the rate of return is high - but the investment is risky - which
means closer monitoring is called for.
It should be carefully noted that I take no stand on the issue - not from
being uninformed, but because of my affiliation with the Civil Liberties
Union, I am only allowed to be an observer....and there is a lot to
observe here at Cornell!
I would be happy to clarify some of my statements above if they need it
(I'm too tired to tell.)
Regards,
-- Gligor Tashkovich
Student/Government Major
RMXJARTJ%CORNELLA.BITNET@BERKELEY.ARPA
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 May 1985 16:36 EDT
From: Dean Sutherland <Sutherland@TL-20A.ARPA>
Subject: comparable worth
A flame on the subject of comparable worth:
(This note was inspired by a conversation I had with two female employees in
the employee lounge here at Tartan.)
The discussion so far (paraphrased, of course):
Me: Comparable worth is a disaster.
They: Comparable worth is an interesting new idea in the fight to gain
equality for women and other minorities.
Me: My biggest problem with comparable worth is that it would have the
government set wages; I believe that is VERY dangerous. There is also
the question of who decides which jobs are comparable.
They: Try being a single mother trying to raise children. Also observe that
one of the traditional ways of bringing about change is to push for
more than you really wanted in hopes of getting part of it.
(There was much more than this. In general, however, I felt that their
arguments were better than mine. As a result, I went and did some research.)
The usual argument for comparable worth seems to go like this:
Women are as intelligent and as competent as men. By law, they cannot
be refused employment on account of their sex, nor be paid less than men for
the same work. Why, then, do they earn, on average, only 59% as much as men
do? Because they are sytematically segregated in jobs which are traditionally
performed mainly by females -- like nurses, secretaries, and librarians -- and
which, therefore, are traditionally underpaid. Half of all working women are
relegated to jobs which are at least 70% female, and about one fifth are in
jobs that are 90% female.
The proposed solution is to force business to pay equal wages for jobs of
"comparable worth". Thus an employer could no longer get away with paying his
female receptionists less than his male janitors unless he could demonstrate
that anwering phones demands less skill, effort and responsibility than mopping
floors.
On another side of the issue are the following arguments:
The argument given above seems to assume that employers can arbitrarily decide
to pay women less than they are worth, ie. that wages are set at the whim of
employers. It seems to me that one can't pay people less than supply and
demand mandates; if you tried your employees would quickly leave for higher
paying jobs. In addition, why would employers magnanimously pay men MORE than
they have to; after all, if wages are arbitrarily set they could just pay the
men less also. The market provides a natural floor on wages -- the "market
value" of a job.
Some proponents of comparable worth seem to believe that a job has an
@i(inherent) worth, irrespective of the market. In other words, they seem to
believe that values are intrinsic, that things have a price even if no one is
willing to pay it, that there can be values without valuers. The "true" worth
of a job, which may go unpercieved by those who pay for it, must therfore be
ascertained by government revelation -- which the non-perceivers must be
@i(forced) to accept.
The method which is most commonly suggested for determining which jobs are
comparable to each other is point system. Under such a system points are
awarded for different job criteria such as the skill, effort, and
responsibility required by the job, as well as the working conditions under
which the job is performed. Jobs with the same number of points are considered
to be of equal worth.
Do jobs really have an @u(intrinsic) value irrespective of the market? A value
which can be determined by using job evaluation systems? Certainly an employer
values the labor of his employees more than he values the wage he pays. The
employee, on the other hand, values the wage more than he values his time and
effort. If this were not the case, trade between them would not have taken
place. When trade does take place, both people feel that they are better off;
each has traded something of less value for something of greater value.
Once again, do jobs really have an intrinsic value, or can the value of a job
only be determined subjectively depending on the circumstances? Consider the
situation of a man stranded on a deserted island. The day before he was
stranded, his circumstances and ideas may have led him to value the services of
a tailor very highly. However, once he is stranded, he no longer cares so much
if his clothes fit well. He may now be willing to trade the services of fifty
tailors for the services of one boat builder. As a consumer, the man stranded
on the deserted island has determined the value he places on the services of a
boat builder, as well as his value of any person the boat builder might employ.
However, not only do wage differentials between jobs reflect the values
consumers place on the contributions workers make to the final product but they
also depend upon the scarcity of qualified workers relative to the demand for
their contributions. Employees who have skills, experience, abilities, and
contributions needed by an entrepeneur, and who are also scarce relative to
demand will be paid higher wages.
In a recent court decision, the American Federation of State, County, and
Municipal Employees (AFSCME) won a major lawsuit against the state of
Washington. Using a point system similar to the one described above, AFSCME
introduced evidence that positions such as that of clerk-typist should be paid
the same hourly wage rate as that of warehouse workers. Judge Jack Tanner
ruled that wages in "female occupations" be increased, not that wages in "male
occupations" be lowered. [1]
With such a comparable worth policy, what would happen if supply and demand
conditions were to drive up the wages in one particular occupation? If, say,
there is a sudden shortage (relative to demand) of warehouse workers in
Washington, causing wages to rise at a greater-than-normal rate, should
clerk-typists automatically recieve the increased wage simply because their
occupation is determined to be of comparable worth?
A common arguments against permitting the forces of supply and demand to set
wages. Some contend that prevailing wages are aproduct of employers past
discriminatory practices. A successful businessman (in a free market) can only
be concerned with the present and the future. The value of something yesterday
is meaningless today. Businessmen value the factors of production, including
labor, avialable in the present in accordance with these factors' anticipated
services in the future production of consumer goods.
I believe that a free market will tend to discourage discrimination. Even a
free market, however, will have its share of irrational and/or ignorant people
who refuse to believe that women can do anything but cook dinner and change
diapers. This sort of mental lethargy is a barrier faced by anything new --
from the wheel to airplane travel. If the market is genuinely free, the
irrational will not prevail. They are repudiated daily by intelligent profit
seekers ready to make lucrative use of female workers, female suppliers, and
female customers. No laws were needed, for example, to counter the fearful
hostility engendered by the introduction of trains or electricity or
automobiles. Women, too, require only the political freedom to demonstrate
their market value -- not the political power to compel acknowledgement of
that value.
Proponents of comparable worth do not seem to want this freedom. They don't
want to have to persuade businesses to hire women or to raise their salaries.
Consider their normal answer to the following question: If women's jobs are
underpaid, why don't women leave for the higher-paying, "comparable" jobs?
An Equal Oportunity Employment Commision report explains that "while the
opportunity to move out of segregated job categories may be welcome to many
women, many others, who have invested considerable time in training for their
jobs, demand wage adjustment in 'women's jobs' rather than opportunities to
work in other jobs" [2]. In other words, many people feel that employers
should be forced to demand whatever skills, experience, or abilities these
women may already have. This would be the same as forcing consumers to
purchase products they do not want simply because these products are already on
the market. If that were the case, entrepeneurs would have little incentive to
create new, more innovative products; consumers would have to buy what the
producers are already selling.
This is precisely the effect a comparable worth policy would have upon women.
They would no longer have the incentive to better themselves, to learn new
skills that are actually in greater demand. With this lack of incentive, wage
rates would be likely to decrease rather than rise. For example, the judge in
the AFSCME v. State of Washington case ruled that wages in "female occupations"
be increased. This decision is likely to increase the incentives of women to
keep entering these "female occupations" and therefore create an oversupply in
these jobs.
In effect, comparable worth policies encourage women to stay where they are,
instead of pursuing better jobs and showing that they can indeed perform them.
They are told not to bother learning the skills which are in greater demand,
but to remain behind their typewriters and switchboards and to strive for
bigger "true-worth" paychecks by suing their bosses. This kind of advice only
reinforces the idea that women are unambitious and less capable than men. The
very women who are trying to shed this image are actually demonstrating that
they agree with it by arguing that women will "never get anywhere" without the
help of government.
In summary, wage rates are ultimately determined by the subjective values of
consumers. These values cannot be objectified by using job-evaluation point
systems. Only individual consumers can compare the worth of a job with the
worth of any other job. They do this whenever they coose to buy one product
over another. Through their actions in the market, consumers signal employers
as to which employees they value highest. These employees will rightfully
command higher wages.
A comparable-worth policy would mean a great reduction in consumer
sovereignity. Any information the market would provide through changes in
prices and wages would be greatly distorted. The economic consequences,
therefore, would be severe shortages in some occupations and an excess supply
in others. Overall economic activity would decline not only because of these
market distortions, but also because many women who could have made innovative
and creative contributions to the economy would be deprived of the incentive to
do so.
If many women are trying to gain the opportunity for individual choice, a
comparable worth policy, or any other government legislation is not the answer.
Women's opportunities and choice depend on the amount of freedom they have.
Only an unhampered market will provide them with the individual choices they
desire and the freedom to make them.
References:
[1] AFSCME vs State of Washington.
[2] Committee on Occupational Classification and Analysis, "Women, Work, and
Wages: Equal Pay for Jobs of Equal Value" (Washington DC: National Academy
Press, 1981) p. 2.
Note: most of this post was paraphrased [cribbed?] (plagiarized???)
{STOLEN????} from two main sources:
1) POLICY ANALYSIS #38 may 31, 1984. "Value and Opportunity: The Issue
of Comparable Pay for Comparable Worth" by Deborah Walker, Cato
Institue, 224 Second t. SE, Washington D.C., 20003 and
2) "The Intellectual Activist" 131 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10003
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 May 85 08:23:40 PDT
From: Richard Foy <foy@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
Subject: Driving Deaths
I wonder if anyone has made a study of how many driving deaths are totally
or partially caused by other bad driving practices beside driving while under
the influebnce. Canditates causes (at least on Los Angeles freeways) are;
following too closely; changing lanes without adaquete clearance; speeding
defined as exceeding the normal traffic speed rather than the speed limit, etc.
I suspect from the close calls I see that these are also a major cause of
traffic deaths. What causes the multiple car rear enders that we have?
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------