idallen@watmath.UUCP (08/05/85)
> The result - even fewer jobs for secretaries. Sad to say because of > sex sterotypes this also means fewer jobs for women. Of course, to > coin a phrase, those who have the jobs will get richer while those without > (and those layed off) will get poorer. -- Brad Templeton ...and will go on welfare -- supplied by the Government, not the private sector. Oh sigh. So much of your arguing is to be free of imposed drains on your own personal wealth and comfort. Never do I hear you argue to be free to support your own welfare system or your own charities or your own hospital or anything that doesn't increase your own immediate well-being. Your arguments say how you want to make more money so that you can afford to hire other people and thus benefit them. If your "don't take it away from me" attitudes are typical of the free-enterprise spirit, I think the secretary on welfare is better off than the one who would be forced to work for you for slave wages (with no welfare system to fall back on, because you and your other free-enterprise moguls don't support it, of your own free will). Still, the rich get richer and the poor, poorer. I can't believe in this free-enterprise system until I hear less about the freedom "not to" and more about the freedom "to". -- -IAN! (Ian! D. Allen) University of Waterloo