regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (07/11/85)
>Brad Templeton >"black female plumbers are paid as much as white male plumbers", it is >also a very important social goal that superior plumbers are paid >more than inferior plumbers. >The same is true for all jobs. If you interfere with the above process, >you can easily destroy most of the incentives in society. >No bureaucrat in Ottawa >has the right or competence to tell me what I'm worth. Or anybody else >for that matter. NOW I'm confused. If it is a process in society to affix some measure of superior and inferior (as well as other measures), and that is a process that you are interested in maintaining, how can you then say nobody has the right or competence to tell you what you're worth? Who, in your personal case, stands in for "society"?
crs@lanl.ARPA (07/12/85)
> >No bureaucrat in Ottawa ^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^ > >has the right or competence to tell me what I'm worth. Or anybody else > >for that matter. > > NOW I'm confused. If it is a process in society to affix some measure of > superior and inferior (as well as other measures), and that is a process > that you are interested in maintaining, how can you then say nobody has > the right or competence to tell you what you're worth? Who, in your > personal case, stands in for "society"? The original idea was valid; the after thought weakens the argument. The problem with getting the government into the act is that some bureaucrat, somewhere, is very likely to be the one to say what one is worth (ie what job is "equivalent" to what other job). I believe this may be what Brad was getting at. Perhaps he will elaborate on the after thought "Or anybody ..." Naturally, all opinions are merely mine, not anyone else's, etc. -- Charlie Sorsby ...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs crs@lanl.arpa
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (07/14/85)
I said, "no bureaucrat has the right to tell me what I'm worth, or anybody else for that matter" and this was questioned, somewhat rightly, since I guess I didn't give proper context. What I meant was that nobody has the right to dictate from above the value of my services. The price put on my services should depend only on myself and those who do the purchasing. For the wage police to come in and say "plumbers are worth $x, systems programmers $y, and janitors $z" is what we should all fear. To suggest that the value of a human being's work is based on some tables in the government is demeaning. It reduces us to cogs. Deciding value is (* surprise *) a value judgement, and it should be subjective. Inherent in "equal pay for work of equal *value*" is that the state (not the people) has to assign a value for each human being. No thanks. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (07/15/85)
. . . > on myself and those who do the purchasing. For the wage police to come > in and say "plumbers are worth $x, systems programmers $y, and janitors > $z" is what we should all fear. > > To suggest that the value of a human being's work is based on some tables > in the government is demeaning. It reduces us to cogs. Deciding value > is (* surprise *) a value judgement, and it should be subjective. I know some clerical staff who would *love* to be demeaned by having an independant authority decide how much they should be paid in general; their pay/conditions could not get much worse than they are now. I'm surprised you think it less demeaning for the value of a human being's work to be based on random market forces or a hiring criterion based on getting the most for the least. > > Inherent in "equal pay for work of equal *value*" is that the state > (not the people) has to assign a value for each human being. No thanks. Not at all necessary; what is necessary is that the decision be made people/persons who can make such a determination independently and without prejudice. Also it is possible that people == state can be true you know. > -- > Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 John Chapman
csc@watmath.UUCP (Computer Sci Club) (07/15/85)
>> >> Inherent in "equal pay for work of equal *value*" is that the state >> (not the people) has to assign a value for each human being. No thanks. > > Not at all necessary; what is necessary is that the decision be made > people/persons who can make such a determination independently and > without prejudice. Also it is possible that people == state can be > true you know. You show me one, just one, person that can make such a determination "independently and without prejudice". Such people simply do not exist. Any program whose correct functioning depends on their existence is doomed to failure. Thus, when there are alternative ways of obtaining a goal that do not rely on the existence of such people, such ways should be pursued. Incidently, one could consider the supposition of the existence of such people to be one of the fundamental flaws in communist theory, but that is a completely different kettle of fish. > >> -- >> Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 > >John Chapman -bob atkinson watmath!csc
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (07/17/85)
. . . > > > > Not at all necessary; what is necessary is that the decision be made > > people/persons who can make such a determination independently and > > without prejudice. Also it is possible that people == state can be > > true you know. > > You show me one, just one, person that can make such a determination > "independently and without prejudice". Such people simply do not > exist. Any program whose correct functioning depends on their Instead of just one how about an example of many? Our justice system depends *exactly* on being able to find people who can decide, independently and without prejudice, a situation when presented with the facts. These people are called juries. . . . > > > >John Chapman > > -bob atkinson > watmath!csc John Chapman
csc@watmath.UUCP (Computer Sci Club) (07/18/85)
>> > Not at all necessary; what is necessary is that the decision be made >> > people/persons who can make such a determination independently and >> > without prejudice. Also it is possible that people == state can be >> > true you know. >> >> You show me one, just one, person that can make such a determination >> "independently and without prejudice". Such people simply do not >> exist. Any program whose correct functioning depends on their > > Instead of just one how about an example of many? Our justice system > depends *exactly* on being able to find people who can decide, > independently and without prejudice, a situation when presented > with the facts. These people are called juries. Not true. Juries and judges are the closet approximation to such a group of people that we have been able to find so far. They are human beings just like you and I, and are hence subject to their own prejudices and biases. It so happens that we have yet to find a different kind of institution that can effectively serve the same function as does our legal system, so we put up with it. As I said before, when, in different situations, other alternatives are available, these should be carefully considered. >> >John Chapman >> >> -bob atkinson > > John Chapman -bob atkinson
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (07/19/85)
> >> > Not at all necessary; what is necessary is that the decision be made > >> > people/persons who can make such a determination independently and > >> > without prejudice. Also it is possible that people == state can be . . > >> You show me one, just one, person that can make such a determination > >> "independently and without prejudice". Such people simply do not > >> exist. Any program whose correct functioning depends on their . . > > Instead of just one how about an example of many? Our justice system > > depends *exactly* on being able to find people who can decide, . . > Not true. Juries and judges are the closet approximation to such a > group of people that we have been able to find so far. They are > human beings just like you and I, and are hence subject to their own > prejudices and biases. It so happens that we have yet to find a different > -bob atkinson Well you guys can nit pick all you want but the fact remains that it is possible to find independant/unprejudiced people to decide almost any issue and have them do a good job; out justice system may be a little slow but the udges and juries seem to generally do a good job. John Chapman
robert@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (07/20/85)
In article <2210@watcgl.UUCP>, jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: > > > > Inherent in "equal pay for work of equal *value*" is that the state > > (not the people) has to assign a value for each human being. No thanks. > > Not at all necessary; what is necessary is that the decision be made > people/persons who can make such a determination independently and > without prejudice. Also it is possible that people == state can be > true you know. > > > -- > > Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario > > John Chapman Sincerity is all very well, I suppose... ****BUT***** ... that a decision has been made independently and without prejudice is *NO* indication that the decision is *RIGHT*! Take any well-meaning fool and put him in charge of decision-making, and *YOUR* criteria are fulfilled. There seem to be only two arguments for wage controls: 1) The cynical version: If *my* group makes the decisions, people like *ME* will benefit. 2) The romantic/naive version: If wise, benevolent, perfect, godlike beings make the decisions, we peasants (or perhaps *you* peasants) will find bliss on Earth. *BLEEEEEECCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!* Let's take it all the way, with the "multiply both sides by zero" approach: If no one has any rights, everyone will have equal rights. -- "Quid me anxius sum?" -- E. Alfredus Numanus Robert Plamondon {turtlevax, resonex, cae780}!weitek!robert
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (07/21/85)
> Well you guys can nit pick all you want but the fact remains that it > is possible to find independant/unprejudiced people to decide almost > any issue and have them do a good job; out justice system may be > a little slow but the udges and juries seem to generally do a good > job. Oh really? A good job on deciding guilt vs. innocence, I am willing to concede. Generally. A good job on sentencing convicted criminals to something appropriate to the crime, no way. Note that EPFWOEV is a "how much" decision, rather than a "yes or no" decision, akin to sentencing rather than guilt/innocence. I would expect the same pattern to prevail: being nice to the poor guy standing up front, and to hell with the social consequences. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (07/24/85)
> > any issue and have them do a good job; out justice system may be > > a little slow but the udges and juries seem to generally do a good > > job. > > Oh really? A good job on deciding guilt vs. innocence, I am willing to > concede. Generally. A good job on sentencing convicted criminals to > something appropriate to the crime, no way. > > Note that EPFWOEV is a "how much" decision, rather than a "yes or no" > decision, akin to sentencing rather than guilt/innocence. I would expect > the same pattern to prevail: being nice to the poor guy standing up > front, and to hell with the social consequences. > -- > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry I am sure that it is within the power of our society, given the will, to implement EPFWOEV in a reasonable manner - dependant only on being able to find a large enough pool of people to make fair decisions based on a set of rules - the (a) problem with the justice system is the range of choices available in sentencing is too limited; this does not have to be the case with EPFWOEV. I stand by my other example as well. People generally react to the introduction of EPFWOEV laws in the same manner as they do to laws regulating smoking - e.g. "impossible to administer", "too expensive", "abrogates my rights" ad nauseam. Yet San Francisco has shown that these are all straw men (to the point of requiring only one person for 1/2 day per week to adminsiter the entire program for the entire city) because when you get right down to it all that's being said is : behave in a reasonable fair manner or we'll make you behave that way (like any parent to a wilful child); faced with this choice most people find it possible to behave in an acceptable manner without having to have big brother looking over their shoulder. -- John Chapman ...!watmath!watcgl!jchapman Disclaimer : These are not the opinions of anyone but me and they may not even be mine.
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (07/24/85)
> 1) The cynical version: If *my* group makes the decisions, people > like *ME* will benefit. > > 2) The romantic/naive version: If wise, benevolent, perfect, godlike > beings make the decisions, we peasants (or perhaps *you* peasants) > will find bliss on Earth. > > *BLEEEEEECCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!* > > Let's take it all the way, with the "multiply both sides by zero" > approach: If no one has any rights, everyone will have equal rights. . . > Robert Plamondon > {turtlevax, resonex, cae780}!weitek!robert Why be so simplistic? Everything does not have to be black and white you know. The point is that when an independant body makes a decision it doesn't have to be perfect (or even close) to be fairer than decisions made by obviously biased people - e.g. employers. To those who say (listen up Brad) it would be degrading to people in general to have their wages decided by some independant (and probably necessarily at least quasi-governmental). How can it possibly be more degrading to have someone(s) making the decision who has nothing to gain or lose by the decision when you compare it to having the decision made by someone whose primary objective is to make as much money as possible which necessitates paying you as little as possible? -- John Chapman ...!watmath!watcgl!jchapman Disclaimer : These are not the opinions of anyone but me and they may not even be mine.
robert@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (07/30/85)
In article <2242@watcgl.UUCP>, jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: > To those who say (listen up Brad) it would be degrading to people > in general to have their wages decided by some independant (and > probably necessarily at least quasi-governmental). How can it > possibly be more degrading to have someone(s) making the decision > who has nothing to gain or lose by the decision when you compare > it to having the decision made by someone whose primary objective > is to make as much money as possible which necessitates paying > you as little as possible? > John Chapman > ...!watmath!watcgl!jchapman Yeah, I know. I've read Marx, too. The problem is that I have trouble making myself feel like a peasant when I've been able to find employers who were more desperate to hire me than I was to work for them. Nor is this particularly rare. The idea of taking away the power of setting salary from people I see every day and giving it to the government is absurd. Maybe things are different in Canada (though I doubt it), but it's very difficult to distract Congresspeople from their business of buggering page boys and accepting bribes to get any decent legislation passed. Anyway, the whole point of centralizing power, as I see it, is to make policy inescapable. If my employer does something I don't like, I only have to find another employer. If the goverment does something I don't like, I have to find another *COUNTRY*. Imposing all of this statist garbage for the sole purpose of wage equality for women seems extreme, especially given the continuing improvements, the number of non-sexist employers and employers who are women, and all. Besides, a change in political climate could cause the controls to be abused. Why are you so eager to put the power of law behind your opinions? Are you so wise, so benevolent, that it's a good idea to sweep away all the diversity in the world and replace it with *YOUR* dictates? -- "Quid me anxius sum?" -- E. Alfredus Numanus Robert Plamondon {turtlevax, resonex, cae780}!weitek!robert
nap@druxo.UUCP (ParsonsNA) (08/03/85)
> Why are you so eager to put the power of law behind your opinions? > Are you so wise, so benevolent, that it's a good idea to sweep away > all the diversity in the world and replace it with *YOUR* dictates? Amusing questions in light of the *lack* of diversity created by decades of past (as well as many current) laws. To avoid misinterpretation...I am extremely distrustful of government's ability to do *anything* right. Nancy Parsons AT&T ISL
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (08/07/85)
> In article <2242@watcgl.UUCP>, jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: > > To those who say (listen up Brad) it would be degrading to people > > in general to have their wages decided by some independant (and > > probably necessarily at least quasi-governmental). How can it > > possibly be more degrading to have someone(s) making the decision > > who has nothing to gain or lose by the decision when you compare > > it to having the decision made by someone whose primary objective > > is to make as much money as possible which necessitates paying > > you as little as possible? > > John Chapman > > ...!watmath!watcgl!jchapman > > Yeah, I know. I've read Marx, too. The problem is that I have > trouble making myself feel like a peasant when I've been able to find > employers who were more desperate to hire me than I was to work for > them. Nor is this particularly rare. I think that if you talked to a significant number of people you would find it rare - it certainly would be for the approx. 15% of the work for that is unemployed in Canada right now. In my experience the majority of people just don't have the choice of jobs/conditions/wages that your statement implies. > > The idea of taking away the power of setting salary from people I see > every day and giving it to the government is absurd. Maybe things How absurd it appears probably depends a lot on where you sit in the prevailing hierarchy. > are different in Canada (though I doubt it), but it's very difficult > to distract Congresspeople from their business of buggering page boys > and accepting bribes to get any decent legislation passed. > > Anyway, the whole point of centralizing power, as I see it, is to This type of power need not necessarily be centralized. > make policy inescapable. If my employer does something I don't like, > I only have to find another employer. If the goverment does > something I don't like, I have to find another *COUNTRY*. Or be forced to find ways of making the government more responsive. > > Imposing all of this statist garbage for the sole purpose of wage > equality for women seems extreme, especially given the continuing > improvements, the number of non-sexist employers and employers who > are women, and all. Besides, a change in political climate could > cause the controls to be abused. So we should never do anything because one day the mechanisms that are necessary to implement some policy may be abused? > > Why are you so eager to put the power of law behind your opinions? > Are you so wise, so benevolent, that it's a good idea to sweep away > all the diversity in the world and replace it with *YOUR* dictates? Right, lets have no laws because any law will replace all that wonderful diversity by *someone's* dictates; I can certainly see where the preservation of institutionalized social injustice is something we would want to preserve. :-> > > -- > > "Quid me anxius sum?" > -- E. Alfredus Numanus > Robert Plamondon > {turtlevax, resonex, cae780}!weitek!robert -- John Chapman ...!watmath!watcgl!jchapman Disclaimer : These are not the opinions of anyone but me and they may not even be mine.