shindman@utcs.UUCP (06/21/85)
In article <5710@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > >British industrialization was already well underway by the early 1800's, >as I recall. And the West was clearly the dominant culture on the planet >well before that. Non-dominant cultures are not in a position to forcibly >suppress competing industries on the other side of the world! I certainly >agree that the West took advantage of its position once it *had* it. But >the notion that the West climbed out of the mud in the first place by >pushing others back down into it is silly. >-- Ok...so maybe you're right...but how did those western industrial countries climb out of the mud to become colonizing industrial giants? Not by pushing others back down, but by pushing their own down and holding them there. The same era of western mechanization and industrialization was also the same era of child labour, squalid (and dangerous) working conditions, below-poverty wages, and all the associated social evils of the time. The west has obviously made great strides since then and has righted many of the wrongs that got industrialization going. But western countries still hold people down in the mud (workers at big companies in 3rd world countries do *not* get company OHIP, blue cross, dental plans, vacation plans, educational assistance, and all those other benefits that we westerners take for granted now) and take an extra bit in the profit margin from it. Things are improving slowly in this area, but I don't see any room for complacency. -- ----------------- Paul Shindman, U of T Computing Services, Toronto (416) 978-6878 USENET: {ihnp4|decvax}!utcs!shindman BITNET: paulie at utoronto IP SHARP MAIL: uoft
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (06/21/85)
You must remember something about the industrial revolution - those horrible working conditions and all the other things we have progressed beyond today did not look the same back then. People were not grabbed out of their farms and forced to work long hours in the factories. They decided to do it because it was a better offer than they got elsewhere. It's true, they didn't like the deal much and would have preferred a bigger piece of the pie, but they hadn't figured out how to get it yet. Back then a job in a factory was superior to an agricultural or migrant existence - why else did people take the jobs. It's hard to come to grips with this, but we owe the men who built the companies of the industrial revolution a great deal. The same "Robber Barons" who squeezed every penny they could get from their employees built up the society today that gives a modern poor person more of just about everything (except personal service) than the middle class had in the 18th and 19th century. Just remember when you claim that modern society was built on the backs of exploited workers that those same people lined up to be exploited wherever they could. ------------------ On another point, while we talk about English colonialism, what about the USA. The industrial revolution of the last century was in Europe, but in the 20th century it was in the USA. Which group of people that the US (or Canada) exploited in the 20th century do you claim as the primary source of modern American strength and wealth? It's my feeling that most of the American companies made their money right here on this continent, and that multinationals external profits are far from the majority of the GNP. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (06/21/85)
In article <15207@watmath.UUCP> idallen@watmath.UUCP (Ian! D. Allen) writes: >> Just remember when you claim that modern society was built on the backs >> of exploited workers that those same people lined up to be exploited >> wherever they could. >> Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 > >Are you saying that because a person or group does something willingly, >it's the right thing to do, and is in his or her or their best interest? > I am saying that if an adult does something of his own free will and it doesn't attempt to harm me, then I have no business interfering. This is known as the "pro-choice" philosophy. Whether people going to work in non-union factories are making a mistake is a question for them to decide. It may be up to us to educate and encourage according to our morals, but to used armed enforcers to insist upon those morals is the anti-choice philosophy. >To paraphrase R.D.Laing ("KNOTS"): > > It must be good for me, therefore I shall do it of my own free will. > I shall do it of my own free will, therefore it must be good for me. >-- > -IAN! (Ian! D. Allen) University of Waterloo -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
idallen@watmath.UUCP (06/21/85)
> Just remember when you claim that modern society was built on the backs > of exploited workers that those same people lined up to be exploited > wherever they could. > Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 Are you saying that because a person or group does something willingly, it's the right thing to do, and is in his or her or their best interest? To paraphrase R.D.Laing ("KNOTS"): It must be good for me, therefore I shall do it of my own free will. I shall do it of my own free will, therefore it must be good for me. -- -IAN! (Ian! D. Allen) University of Waterloo
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (06/21/85)
> ... The same era of western mechanization > and industrialization was also the same era of child labour, squalid > (and dangerous) working conditions, below-poverty wages, and all the > associated social evils of the time. The era that preceded it (and various people seem to be assuming that the rise of the West started with the Industrial Revolution, a curious assumption) was also one of child labour, squalid and dangerous working conditions, below-poverty wages, and various assorted social evils. It was a bit less obvious, because these conditions existed on subsistence- level farms all over the place rather than in concentrated form in big cities. People who don't believe this have no concept of what pre-mechanized farming was like. I spent some time (not a lot) on *mechanized* farms when I was a kid, and we kids worked like everyone else. The Industrial Revolution was what ultimately made it possible to *abolish* child labour, for the first time in human history. Not to mention more conspicuous forms of slavery... People who think that early industrial life was dramatically worse than the farm life that preceded it should look carefully at pre-industrial farm conditions before making such strong statements. It is true that the social benefits of increased wealth accrued first to a fortunate few, and affected the working masses much later. But increased wealth, not just good intentions, is a basic prerequisite for better conditions. Not sufficient by itself, but necessary. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
clarke@utcs.UUCP (06/21/85)
In article <295@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >People were not grabbed out of their farms and forced to work long hours >in the factories. They decided to do it because it was a better offer >than they got elsewhere.... > >Just remember when you claim that modern society was built on the backs >of exploited workers that those same people lined up to be exploited >wherever they could. Of course, the deal they got "elsewhere" was agricultural work with the previous generation of rotten, nasty capitalists. Well, "feudalists"? Maybe one reason why the early industrialists were such bastards (and they were, too -- the British reformed their mines and factories faster, once they had found out what was going on, than they had abolished slavery) was that they had to be bastards at home in order to be bastards abroad later? I don't know. I doubt that anyone on this net does. Any economic historians out there?
fred@mnetor.UUCP (06/21/85)
In article <708@utcs.UUCP> clarke@utcs.UUCP (Jim Clarke) writes: >In article <295@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >>People were not grabbed out of their farms and forced to work long hours >>in the factories. They decided to do it because it was a better offer >>than they got elsewhere.... >> >>Just remember when you claim that modern society was built on the backs >>of exploited workers that those same people lined up to be exploited >>wherever they could. > >Of course, the deal they got "elsewhere" was agricultural work with the >previous generation of rotten, nasty capitalists. Well, "feudalists"? > What people seem to be describing is an unsteady progression towards higher standards of living brought about by industrialization. I have pointed out to one person by mail that whatever was done in the past, we cannot currently blame the state of underdeveloped countries on exploitation by Canada,(or possibly even the Western nations in general), because we do so little trading with them that it has very little effect on our economy. Our high standard of living in fact depends upon trading partners well enough developed to supply our needs. For a while, you could say we were exploiting the cheap labour to be had in Japan. You will note how damaging this has turned out to be to Japan's economy?!?! (By the way, I think I said in a previous memo that China is starting out along the same road.) So it can only be concluded that now it is in our best interests to promote higher standards of living in the third world so that we can broaden our markets and sources and thereby improve our own conditions. . .before China buries us! Cheers, Fred Williams
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (06/22/85)
I have sent the following to Henry Spencer:
Henry,
Although I don't agree with everything you have said in this discussion,
I want to applaud you for a valuable and sensible set of contributions.
You might even convince me to agree with you after a few more submissions!
One point of disagreement: colonialism. You seemed to argue as if it was
19th century colonialism that was claimed to start the great rise of
European prosperity, and you rightly put down the notion. But it is
less clear that 15th -18th century colonialism (which was more of the
trading variety than of the imperial raj variety) did not contribute
greatly (too many negatives in there; what I mean is that a lot of
Western European wealth in those centuries came from foreign and unequal
trade -- Spain and Portugal with the Americas, Netherlands with the
Spice Islands, England with India and all sorts of places, everybody
with W. African slaves). I think colonialism of this kind provided
much of the wealth that permitted the later expansion of the Industrial
Revolution, which in turn gave Europe a huge technological advantage
over the people of the areas they chose to colonize.
Where I might be convinced is that Europe already had a technological
advantage by the 14th century, and the Italian Renaissance has no
colonial roots that I know of, but created lots of wealth. There
really IS a chicken/egg situation here.
Why didn't it occur when China had the technological advantage? Probably
because of their rigid bureaucratic structure. Why did it not occur
much earlier in Europe? Probably because of the almost anarchic
conditions and lack of an adequate state bureaucracy. As you have
pointed out, good management is essential to the exploitation of
the innovation that freedom permits. Both too much and too little
management is fatal to economic success, whether the management is
within a company or is part of the government.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmtmmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (06/22/85)
> I have pointed out to one person by mail that whatever was done in >the past, we cannot currently blame the state of underdeveloped >countries on exploitation by Canada,(or possibly even the Western >nations in general), because we do so little trading with them that >it has very little effect on our economy. Our high standard of living >in fact depends upon trading partners well enough developed to >supply our needs. >... > So it can only be concluded that now it is in our best interests >to promote higher standards of living in the third world so that >we can broaden our markets and sources and thereby improve our own >conditions. . .before China buries us! > >Cheers, Fred Williams This is precisely the main thesis of the Brandt Commission report of 1982(1?). If the Western world does not ensure that the Third World improves drastically its standard of living, the Western economies will collapse. If they do develop their internal economies so that they can support a significant level of trade with us, not only they, but we will be much better off. (Politically, I guess that if Russia or China is perceived as being responsible for helping them and we for suppressing them, we might not receive as much benefit, but it would still be better than having them stay impoverished.) -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (06/23/85)
>>> Just remember when you claim that modern society was built on the backs >>> of exploited workers that those same people lined up to be exploited >>> wherever they could. >>> Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 >> >>Are you saying that because a person or group does something willingly, >>it's the right thing to do, and is in his or her or their best interest? >> >I am saying that if an adult does something of his own free will and it >doesn't attempt to harm me, then I have no business interfering. > >This is known as the "pro-choice" philosophy. > >Whether people going to work in non-union factories are making a mistake >is a question for them to decide. It may be up to us to educate and >encourage according to our morals, but to used armed enforcers to insist >upon those morals is the anti-choice philosophy. Surely a pro-choice philosophy would give the highest value to the availability of choices? A choice between being downtrodden (I don't like the word "exploited" here) in one place and being downtrodden in another isn't much of a choice. If some coercion of exploiters (here it is the right word) results in more and better choices for the many, wouldn't this be consistent with the pro-choice philosophy? [About "exploit": I like to exploit my various abilities, and I hope my employers do, too. I don't feel downtrodden because of it. All of us try (or should try) to exploit our environment to our best advantage, but to do so isn't necessarily to the disadvantage ot the people and things with whom/which we interact. We aren't in a zero-sum game.] -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (06/24/85)
In article <1588@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) writes: >This is precisely the main thesis of the Brandt Commission report of 1982(1?). >If the Western world does not ensure that the Third World improves >drastically its standard of living, the Western economies will collapse. >If they do develop their internal economies so that they can support >a significant level of trade with us, not only they, but we will be >much better off. Tell that to Bangladesh (sp?). After pouring in megabucks in aid to that country, so that among other things they can develop a textile industry, the Government insists on putting quotas on the shirts they export to Canada. Makes a lot of sense, eh? J.B. Robinson
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (06/24/85)
In article <2095@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: > Sure Brad take anyone and put them in a miserable existence for long > enough and then offer them a slightly less miserable existence and > they'll probably take it. Let's also not forget that there was a > privelidged/ruling class back then as well and that they are/were > one of the reasons why the poor were so poor in the first place. Lets > also not forget the "orphanages" where poor unfortunates were given > something useful to do (like crawling through mine tunnels for 14 > hours a day) or women forced to do the same because their social/political > system did not allow them any alternative. Lets also not forget the > company towns where workers were kept; where they were forced to buy > the necessities of life at inflated prices so that they could never > get out of the cycle. > Nobody is going around defending this behaviour. We're all aware it happened. Enumerating it isn't really relative to the case. The whole world used to be poor. Now lots of it isn't. This is a FACT. It's also a fact that some people, and not everybody, figured out how to change the world from poor to richer. It's also true that the people who figured this out, clever as they were, also figured out how to keep the biggest chunk of the pie they were creating. They managed to keep most of it and give only as little as possible to those they hired. But, they did have to give them something more than they had. It wouldn't have worked otherwise, except through slavery. Which is not to say there wasn't slavery and strongarming. Those things did exist and are deplored by everybody today. The only thing that isn't an established fact, and thus subject to debate is, "Was the strongarming the most important factor in the success of these people, or was it simply one of the factors?" >> ------------------ >> >> It's my feeling that most >> of the American companies made their money right here on this continent, >> and that multinationals external profits are far from the majority of >> the GNP. > Well think about it the next time you buy shoes from Bata (South > America & Philipines), or strawberries from South America, or ICs from > Taiwan or the Philipines, or lettuce from California or New Mexico > (planted and harvested by Mexican wetbacks). All these things > are cheap in large part because of labour that is paid subsistence > wages. I don't *think* it extended into the 20'th century but I've > been told that around the time of confederation there was a bounty > on Indian scalps in parts of the east coast (we wanted their land > you see). > So you have listed a few companies and industries. I can literally list thousands, almost millions of counterexamples. Enumerating examples of misuse is not important. Let's see aggregate figures concerning domestic production vs. foreign production, and revenues attributable to both. > > ...Many more examples of nasty goings on... All these are terrible, and it is the function of the government to erradicate them. But the principle of freedom should still be the fundamental principle, and it should only be modified with the greatest of care to correct injustices. The argument that the principle of communism is correct, and freedom should only be added where it can be proven useful scares me. > > When the rich get richer the money has to come from somewhere > and that usually means taking it from the poor. When the > powerful gain opportunities it usually means the weak lose them. > THIS IS THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL MISCONCEPTION. It shows a total lack of understanding of trade, I am very sorry to say. Free, informed trade is never zero-sum. Not just rarely, NEVER. Free trade always results in both parties being richer than they were before. The only way you can lose in free trade is if you a) Make a mistake because of your own stupidity or ignorance. b) Are forced through violence into making a "mistake." When the rich get richer the money does NOT have to come from somewhere. People create wealth, that's how societies in general get wealthier. Did you think that all new wealth came from the government printing presses? -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
fred@mnetor.UUCP (06/24/85)
In article <1592@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) writes: >[About "exploit": I like to exploit my various abilities, and I hope >my employers do, too. I don't feel downtrodden because of it. All of >us try (or should try) to exploit our environment to our best advantage, >but to do so isn't necessarily to the disadvantage ot the people and things >with whom/which we interact. We aren't in a zero-sum game.] >-- > >Martin Taylor >{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt >{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt This all depends on what you mean by exploit. If you take from your environment and return nothing but polution, you eventually loose your environment. It's the philosophy that if other things cannot live with you, then you will not live long either. We have to learn to cooperate with nature to be successful from an ecological standpoint ; and since I know this was not originally a conservationist discussion, We have to learn to cooperate with the natural laws in economics,(ie. supply & demand, etc.). Rather than exploitation, I think I prefer synergism! Cheers, Fred Williams
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (06/24/85)
> You must remember something about the industrial revolution - those horrible > working conditions and all the other things we have progressed beyond > today did not look the same back then. > > People were not grabbed out of their farms and forced to work long hours > in the factories. They decided to do it because it was a better offer > than they got elsewhere. It's true, they didn't like the deal much > and would have preferred a bigger piece of the pie, but they hadn't > figured out how to get it yet. Back then a job in a factory was superior > to an agricultural or migrant existence - why else did people take the > jobs. > > It's hard to come to grips with this, but we owe the men who built the > companies of the industrial revolution a great deal. The same "Robber Barons" > who squeezed every penny they could get from their employees built up > the society today that gives a modern poor person more of just about > everything (except personal service) than the middle class had in the > 18th and 19th century. > > Just remember when you claim that modern society was built on the backs > of exploited workers that those same people lined up to be exploited > wherever they could. Sure Brad take anyone and put them in a miserable existence for long enough and then offer them a slightly less miserable existence and they'll probably take it. Let's also not forget that there was a privelidged/ruling class back then as well and that they are/were one of the reasons why the poor were so poor in the first place. Lets also not forget the "orphanages" where poor unfortunates were given something useful to do (like crawling through mine tunnels for 14 hours a day) or women forced to do the same because their social/political system did not allow them any alternative. Lets also not forget the company towns where workers were kept; where they were forced to buy the necessities of life at inflated prices so that they could never get out of the cycle. > ------------------ > On another point, while we talk about English colonialism, what about the > USA. The industrial revolution of the last century was in Europe, but > in the 20th century it was in the USA. Which group of people that the > US (or Canada) exploited in the 20th century do you claim as the primary > source of modern American strength and wealth? It's my feeling that most > of the American companies made their money right here on this continent, > and that multinationals external profits are far from the majority of > the GNP. > Well think about it the next time you buy shoes from Bata (South America & Philipines), or strawberries from South America, or ICs from Taiwan or the Philipines, or lettuce from California or New Mexico (planted and harvested by Mexican wetbacks). All these things are cheap in large part because of labour that is paid subsistence wages. I don't *think* it extended into the 20'th century but I've been told that around the time of confederation there was a bounty on Indian scalps in parts of the east coast (we wanted their land you see). Blacks of course have been exploited throughout this century (not to mention before) for economic benefit. Women have always been a big favourite for exploitation, and today working women still earn an average of 63% of what men earn (they get to do all the really boring low level jobs for really low wages; makes businesses cheap to run you see). And of course there's little things like dumping toxic waste (e.g. mercury) on lands and waterways that belong to Indian reserves (recent case right here in Canada); much cheaper than processing it properly. In the 50's in Vancouver the federal government gave a 99 year lease to the Shaugnessy(as I recall) golf course for a fraction of what the land was worth; it happened to belong to an Indian band and the gov't just lied to them about the deal - that one got into the courts and the band was awarded damages by the courts. It would be interesting to have a list of where our banks invest their (our) money. I'll bet a large part of it is in third world countries with underpaid labour. Lets also remember the current round of revelations of Canadian companies selling to right wing regimes with long histories of human rights violations. When the rich get richer the money has to come from somewhere and that usually means taking it from the poor. When the powerful gain opportunities it usually means the weak lose them. > -- > Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (06/25/85)
>>This is precisely the main thesis of the Brandt Commission report of 1982(1?). >>If the Western world does not ensure that the Third World improves >>drastically its standard of living, the Western economies will collapse. >>If they do develop their internal economies so that they can support >>a significant level of trade with us, not only they, but we will be >>much better off. > >Tell that to Bangladesh (sp?). After pouring in megabucks in aid to that >country, so that among other things they can develop a textile industry, >the Government insists on putting quotas on the shirts they export to >Canada. Makes a lot of sense, eh? > >J.B. Robinson No. Tell it to the Canadian Government and the protectionist lobbyists. I expect the Bangladesh Government and others in similar situations are well aware of the inconsistency. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (06/25/85)
. . . > > hours a day) or women forced to do the same because their social/political > > system did not allow them any alternative. Lets also not forget the > > company towns where workers were kept; where they were forced to buy > > the necessities of life at inflated prices so that they could never > > get out of the cycle. > > > Nobody is going around defending this behaviour. We're all aware it > happened. Enumerating it isn't really relative to the case. The whole It sure is relevant. You make comments about them making a choice as if they suddenly materialized out of vacuum and just made this rational choice (btw making a choice when then alternative is basically unnacceptable is hardly a "choice"). Thats just too simple. How did these people get to be so poor in the first place (there was a class of people who weren't poor you know)? > world used to be poor. Now lots of it isn't. This is a FACT. It's > also a fact that some people, and not everybody, figured out how to > change the world from poor to richer. It's also true that the people > who figured this out, clever as they were, also figured out how to keep > the biggest chunk of the pie they were creating. They managed to keep Gee how did they get so clever? Maybe it was because they had some time to think (you know, instead of grunging around in mines all day); or maybe their families had the money to set up the factories; well I After all if a guy can't do a little 14 hour shift in the mine and then develop industrial strategy and techniques in his spare time then he probably just doesn't deserve to succeed does he. And if he can't save to set up a factory because he only gets *just enough* to feed his family for his 14 shifts well it's his fault; he should work harder and longer, after all there are 24 hours in day. > most of it and give only as little as possible to those they hired. > But, they did have to give them something more than they had. It wouldn't > have worked otherwise, except through slavery. Which is not to say there > wasn't slavery and strongarming. Those things did exist and are deplored > by everybody today. The only thing that isn't an established fact, and thus I've got news for you Brad, slavery still exists, in fact if not in name. And we can't all deplore it since our companies invest in it and we buy the products of it. > subject to debate is, "Was the strongarming the most important factor in > the success of these people, or was it simply one of the factors?" > >> ------------------ > >> > >> It's my feeling that most > >> of the American companies made their money right here on this continent, > >> and that multinationals external profits are far from the majority of > >> the GNP. > > Well think about it the next time you buy shoes from Bata (South > > America & Philipines), or strawberries from South America, or ICs from > > Taiwan or the Philipines, or lettuce from California or New Mexico > > (planted and harvested by Mexican wetbacks). All these things > > are cheap in large part because of labour that is paid subsistence > > wages. I don't *think* it extended into the 20'th century but I've > > been told that around the time of confederation there was a bounty > > on Indian scalps in parts of the east coast (we wanted their land > > you see). > > > So you have listed a few companies and industries. I can literally list > thousands, almost millions of counterexamples. Enumerating examples of Well actually I doubt you can however that's neither here nor there. You asked what group had been exploited in the 20th century and I've given you some examples. It not such a simple problem you see that you can give one simple name to those people/groups. I notice you have conveniently left out the large groups I did use like women and blacks (definitely more than half the population) and those companies which abuse the environment to increase profits or as we are seeing in the paper sell to countries with long records of human rights violations. Why ignore these Brad? > misuse is not important. Let's see aggregate figures concerning domestic > production vs. foreign production, and revenues attributable to both. OK: Women : aprroximately 50% of the population. Probably close to that percentage of the work force. Average wage: 63% of the average male wage. If we assume women are not inherently inferior to men then we save approx. 25% of the labour cost component of goods (since we don't give that 50% of the people a 50% raise) directly by discriminating and suppressing this particular group of people. > > > > ...Many more examples of nasty goings on... > All these are terrible, and it is the function of the government to > erradicate them. But the principle of freedom should still be the > fundamental principle, and it should only be modified with the greatest > of care to correct injustices. The argument that the principle of communism ^^^^^^^^^ Who is talking about communism??????? Isn't that a little paranoid? Does a system where everyone is given equal opportunity (and not just lip service to the idea) mean communism? If a system does not take advantage of the poor or the weak or it does economically discriminate against one sex then it's a communist system? You remind me of a news report I once saw on American tv; they read this document to people on the street and asked them what they thought of it - most people thought it was communist garbage - it was the US declarati of independance (or the constitution, I can't remember now). > is correct, and freedom should only be added where it can be proven useful > scares me. > > > > When the rich get richer the money has to come from somewhere > > and that usually means taking it from the poor. When the > > powerful gain opportunities it usually means the weak lose them. > > > > THIS IS THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL MISCONCEPTION. It shows a total lack of > understanding of trade, I am very sorry to say. Free, informed trade is never > zero-sum. Not just rarely, NEVER. Free trade always results in both > parties being richer than they were before. I think you just don't percieve what I'm saying and perhaps I should have been clearer. It is the relative distribution of wealth, power, freedom, etc. etc. ; "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer". In many countries there is an ever widening gap between the lower economic strata and the upper. I've been told by friends who spend a fair bit of time researching this stuff that the middle class is dissappearing insome south american countries leaving only the rich and the poor. > > The only way you can lose in free trade is if you > a) Make a mistake because of your own stupidity or ignorance. > b) Are forced through violence into making a "mistake." > > When the rich get richer the money does NOT have to come from somewhere. > People create wealth, that's how societies in general get wealthier. > Did you think that all new wealth came from the government printing > presses? > -- > Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
bstempleton@watmath.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (06/26/85)
In article <2102@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: >. >. (to paraphrase) People didn't make a valid choice in the old days, > they were forced between one type of poverty and another. > >> world used to be poor. Now lots of it isn't. This is a FACT. It's >> also a fact that some people, and not everybody, figured out how to >> change the world from poor to richer. It's also true that the people >> who figured this out, clever as they were, also figured out how to keep >> the biggest chunk of the pie they were creating. They managed to keep > >Gee how did they get so clever? Maybe it was because they had some time >to think (you know, instead of grunging around in mines all day); or >maybe their families had the money to set up the factories; well I >After all if a guy can't do a little 14 hour shift in the mine and >then develop industrial strategy and techniques in his spare time >then he probably just doesn't deserve to succeed does he. And if he >can't save to set up a factory because he only gets *just enough* >to feed his family for his 14 shifts well it's his fault; he should >work harder and longer, after all there are 24 hours in day. Not to go on and on, but just what does this mean? Do you suggest that all innovators did their work on the backs of the oppressed? That all the succesful people started on their way with daddy's money? That's not even true TODAY - check Forbes magazine's figures on just how many of the world's richest are new money, not old money. The world was in poverty and somehow it got out of it. The poor did not spontaneously organize. Clever people organized them, and took a big chunk of the pie. Now you bitch because in hindsight you feel that these people should not have been given so big a chunk. > >> most of it and give only as little as possible to those they hired. >> But, they did have to give them something more than they had. It wouldn't >> have worked otherwise, except through slavery. Which is not to say there >> wasn't slavery and strongarming. Those things did exist and are deplored >> by everybody today. The only thing that isn't an established fact, and thus > >I've got news for you Brad, slavery still exists, in fact if not in >name. And we can't all deplore it since our companies invest in it >and we buy the products of it. I am fully aware of it. Any time somebody else controls, without your explicit permission, what you can do with your body and the fruits of your labours, it is slavery. They have it in South Africa and they have it in Russia. We even have it partially here (it's called taxation). Some day we will be rid of it, I hope. wi > > > You asked what group had been exploited in the 20th century and I've > given you some examples. It not such a simple problem you see that > you can give one simple name to those people/groups. I notice you > have conveniently left out the large groups I did use like women > and blacks (definitely more than half the population) and those > companies which abuse the environment to increase profits or as > we are seeing in the paper sell to countries with long records of > human rights violations. Why ignore these Brad? I do not ignore them, and my apolgies for not responding to each point, but I feel these net discussions get far too big and should better be done in person if possible. I can, but don't answer every point. Sorry. > >> misuse is not important. Let's see aggregate figures concerning domestic >> production vs. foreign production, and revenues attributable to both. > OK: > Women : aprroximately 50% of the population. Probably close to that > percentage of the work force. Average wage: 63% of the average > male wage. If we assume women are not inherently inferior > to men then we save approx. 25% of the labour cost component > of goods (since we don't give that 50% of the people a 50% > raise) directly by discriminating and suppressing this > particular group of people. Well, the debate was on foreign figures, but I will tackle this domestic issue. First, your assumption that "women are not inherently inferior to men" doesn't quite apply. A large proportion of the difference between total male and female earnings is due to the fact that men are still doing the most important jobs in society. In the old days, men did them all and women didn't work, so women earned a penny for every dollar men made. Does that mean people were saving 99% of their costs by suppressing women? Hardly. We may not like the fact that men still rule the economy, but it makes your figures meaningless. In the cases where women are paid less than men for the same work, then you truly have unfair treatment of women. But such unfair misuse of women is hardly the major cause of our economic prosperity. If anything, misuse of good talent HURTS us rather than helps us. >> ...I refer to communism as the opposite philosophy to the free-enterprise >> philosophy... > Who is talking about communism??????? Isn't that a little paranoid? > Does a system where everyone is given equal opportunity (and not > just lip service to the idea) mean communism? If a system does not > take advantage of the poor or the weak or it does economically > discriminate against one sex then it's a communist system? You remind > me of a news report I once saw on American tv; they read this > document to people on the street and asked them what they thought of > it - most people thought it was communist garbage - it was the US > declarati of independance (or the constitution, I can't remember now). > I doubt I remind you of such a report. You unfairly judge my awareness in these matters. There is a well known spectrum of economic belief that ranges from the belief in free enterprise, privately owned on one side to the belief in state (or common) ownership and/or control of the means of production on the other. I was making a comment on that spectrum and my use of the word communism was entirely appropriate. Who's being paranoid? >> I point out that free trade is a both-sides-win game, not a zero sum game. > He points out that in some nations the gap between rich and poor is growing. Indeed, say I. In many nations the poor are uneducated or foolish, just as they once were in western society. In this country, my impression is that the middle class is growing, and that everybody is getting richer, albiet some faster than others. In our own country, we are advanced enough (or soon will be) that we need not meddle in other poeple's private affairs, or so I dearly hope. In other countries they may not be so lucky. Do you suggest we should take over those countries and set things right? Or restrain our own citizens from doing things in foreign lands? -- Brad Templeton - Waterloo, Ont. (519) 886-7304
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (06/26/85)
. . <many statements from Brad & me> . > >then he probably just doesn't deserve to succeed does he. And if he > >can't save to set up a factory because he only gets *just enough* > >to feed his family for his 14 shifts well it's his fault; he should > >work harder and longer, after all there are 24 hours in day. > > Not to go on and on, but just what does this mean? Do you suggest > that all innovators did their work on the backs of the oppressed? That > all the succesful people started on their way with daddy's money? That's > not even true TODAY - check Forbes magazine's figures on just how many of > the world's richest are new money, not old money. The world was in > poverty and somehow it got out of it. The poor did not spontaneously > organize. Clever people organized them, and took a big chunk of the pie. > Now you bitch because in hindsight you feel that these people should not > have been given so big a chunk. Well listen and I'll tell you what I meant. No I don't think that all innovators did their work on the backs of the oppressed. I do think that a lot of them did in one way or another because the privelidged had the time and money to "innovate" and the poor generally didn't even if they did have the inclination. Even if some hypothetical "poor person" had an idea he was a lot less likely to be able to carry it out if it required capital, as compared to a more well off person. I think it's kind of like a race except that the advantage you get form being in the upper class is not just additive it's multiplicative. A little more money gives you a little more time to think/innovate (whatever), it also gives you a little better chance of implementing your ideas. Over you're lifetime you will widen the gap, between you and a poorer person, a little more and so you're children will start off even further ahead of the poorer person's children the you were ahead of him. Obviously this is not always the case and some people through luck, skill or other reasons will rise above their station, so to speak, while others may fall. However when you are talking about whole groups of people I think it is generally true - the group that starts out with the advantages. Also - perhaps there was some humanitarian merit in giving orphans a place to sleep and (just enough) food to survive in return for them doing your mining but they wealthy people who owned the mines could certainly have given them more (they might have been able to afford to leave though and you don't want to lose you're workforce). I really don't see any difference between this and slavery. I guess the problem I have with your previous statements is that it makes it sound like those industrialists rose on sheer merit (which I obviously don't believe) and that it was the best thing that could have happened to the poor (I think a lot of better things could have happened). The impression I get from you (right or wrong) is that the poor are poor through some fault of their own or some kind of congenital defect. > > > >> most of it and give only as little as possible to those they hired. > >> But, they did have to give them something more than they had. It wouldn't > >> have worked otherwise, except through slavery. Which is not to say there > >> wasn't slavery and strongarming. Those things did exist and are deplored > >> by everybody today. The only thing that isn't an established fact, and thus . . . < many other comments >
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (06/26/85)
. . < Brad and I say many more things> . > > > > > > You asked what group had been exploited in the 20th century and I've > > given you some examples. It not such a simple problem you see that > > you can give one simple name to those people/groups. I notice you > > have conveniently left out the large groups I did use like women > > and blacks (definitely more than half the population) and those > > companies which abuse the environment to increase profits or as > > we are seeing in the paper sell to countries with long records of > > human rights violations. Why ignore these Brad? > > I do not ignore them, and my apolgies for not responding to each point, but > I feel these net discussions get far too big and should better be done > in person if possible. I can, but don't answer every point. Sorry. > > > >> misuse is not important. Let's see aggregate figures concerning domestic > >> production vs. foreign production, and revenues attributable to both. > > OK: > > Women : aprroximately 50% of the population. Probably close to that > > percentage of the work force. Average wage: 63% of the average > > male wage. If we assume women are not inherently inferior > > to men then we save approx. 25% of the labour cost component > > of goods (since we don't give that 50% of the people a 50% > > raise) directly by discriminating and suppressing this > > particular group of people. > Well, the debate was on foreign figures, but I will tackle this domestic > issue. First, your assumption that "women are not inherently inferior to > men" doesn't quite apply. A large proportion of the difference between > total male and female earnings is due to the fact that men are still doing the > most important jobs in society. In the old days, men did them all and women > didn't work, so women earned a penny for every dollar men made. Does that > mean people were saving 99% of their costs by suppressing women? Hardly. > We may not like the fact that men still rule the economy, but it makes your > figures meaningless. In the cases where women are paid less than men for > the same work, then you truly have unfair treatment of women. But such > unfair misuse of women is hardly the major cause of our economic prosperity. > If anything, misuse of good talent HURTS us rather than helps us. Sigh.... Well not to get too tiresome but: you asked what group(s) had been oppressed by the US and/or Canada in the twentieth century. When I listed some groups you dismissed the small ones as being irrelevant and ignored the larger groups. In reply to your response above: You are choosing the wrong figures; if 1% of the work force was female and were paid 1% of what males were paid then I would have claimed a 1% savings in labour not the 99% you would have me claiming. A more concrete example: various tasks must be performed for a company to make and sell widgets. Let's say 100% of the tasks are performed by men and a widget costs $100 for labour. Now imagine we have 99% men and 1% women but the women are paid only 1% of what men are paid (on average) then the labour cost is $99.99. Your mistake was including the total population of women not just the female work force and comparing it to the workforce (I still can't see how you could possibly come up with the answer you did); there are people (me for instance) that will point out that the housework and babysitting the women did with little or no renumeration was what allowed men to be out in the workforce all day in the first place; if the men had had to pay the women what their services were actually worth they would have had to make *much* bigger demands on their employers and thus the cost of good and services would have risen. . . . <more things>
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (06/26/85)
. . .< many statements> > unfair misuse of women is hardly the major cause of our economic prosperity. > If anything, misuse of good talent HURTS us rather than helps us. I completely agree and I assume you will take whatever opportunity you can to encourage and promote women in all walks of life (in your own interests.....). > > >> ...I refer to communism as the opposite philosophy to the free-enterprise > >> philosophy... > > > Who is talking about communism??????? Isn't that a little paranoid? > > Does a system where everyone is given equal opportunity (and not > > just lip service to the idea) mean communism? If a system does not > > take advantage of the poor or the weak or it does economically > > discriminate against one sex then it's a communist system? You remind > > me of a news report I once saw on American tv; they read this > > document to people on the street and asked them what they thought of > > it - most people thought it was communist garbage - it was the US > > declarati of independance (or the constitution, I can't remember now). > > > > I doubt I remind you of such a report. You unfairly judge my awareness > in these matters. There is a well known spectrum of economic belief that > ranges from the belief in free enterprise, privately owned on one side to > the belief in state (or common) ownership and/or control of the means of > production on the other. I was making a comment on that spectrum and > my use of the word communism was entirely appropriate. Who's being > paranoid? > was talking about the oppression of women and your reply was "... The argument that the principle of communism...." implying (to me anyway) that what I was proposing was communism. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt however and assume I misinterpreted you. BTW remind: a verb. Now that it is in the past I would say " you reminded me of...", I don't now why you doubt this but it is true. > >> I point out that free trade is a both-sides-win game, not a zero sum game. > > > He points out that in some nations the gap between rich and poor is growing. > > Indeed, say I. In many nations the poor are uneducated or foolish, just > as they once were in western society. In this country, my impression is > that the middle class is growing, and that everybody is getting richer, albiet > some faster than others. > > In our own country, we are advanced enough (or soon will be) that we need > not meddle in other poeple's private affairs, or so I dearly hope. In > other countries they may not be so lucky. Do you suggest we should take > over those countries and set things right? Or restrain our own citizens > from doing things in foreign lands? If what our own citizens do in foreign lands hurts the occupants of those lands then hell yes restrain them. Why not? Do I suggest we take over those lands? No, I suggest we offer whatever help we can whenever we can to improve everyones situation; as you pointed out wasting talent hurts everyone. I think in a reasonable society everyone would be both encouraged *and* helped to develop their abilities as far as they will go. > -- > Brad Templeton - Waterloo, Ont. (519) 886-7304
robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (06/27/85)
In article <2102@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: > Women : aprroximately 50% of the population. Probably close to that > percentage of the work force. Average wage: 63% of the average > male wage. If we assume women are not inherently inferior > to men then we save approx. 25% of the labour cost component > of goods (since we don't give that 50% of the people a 50% > raise) directly by discriminating and suppressing this > particular group of people. I do not see how direct discrimination and suppression results in this wage gap. The way I see it women have the same choices that exist for for men, e.g. finish high school, get a university degree in medicine, engineering, or whatever. That a significant percentage of women tend to gravitate towards traditionally female careers (e.g. nursing) is *not* because someone is denying them access to the type of training or education that will result in high paying jobs. I suspect it is due to the fact that only recently have women either wanted or had to have well paying jobs (previously women were expected to marry and, for the most part, be supported by their husbands). Since this is a relatively new phenomenon it will take some time before a new steady state is reached in which women make up 50% of all engineering, medicine, plumbing, etc classes and hence 50% of those professions, resulting in the average woman making 100% of what the average male makes. > Who is talking about communism??????? Isn't that a little paranoid? > Does a system where everyone is given equal opportunity (and not > just lip service to the idea) mean communism? If a system does not The key phrase in the above is equal opportunity. As I said above that exists for women now. It also exists, to a large extent, for any and every group in *this* country. Because a particular group has not taken advantage of the opportunities that exist is no reason to raise the bogeyman of discrimination. Consider immigrants from some mythical country. It is quite possible that in their homeland job training and/or higher education were not given much importance. Thus, once in Canada, they find themselves in a country where the "old ways" just don't cut it anymore and their present economic situation would reflect this. At this point some would say that these people are being discriminated against. I would totally disagree. They have the same access to training and educational programs as everyone else and if they refuse to recognise the need to be trained and/or educated then even though this is a regrettable state of affairs it is by no means discrimination. In conclusion the question should not be why does group A earn X% of what group B does. The question should be *first* is group A doing everything that it can to take advantage of the opportunities that exist? If this is indeed the case, *then* the matter of disparate earnings should be looked at, and if necessary some kind of AA policies instituted so that group A is properly represented in the various professions and job areas. J.B. Robinson P.S. As necessitated by my view of Utopia I support easy access to job training and *retraining* programs and to post-secondary school opportunities in general. I believe that tuition fees for such schemes should be very modest (almost, but not quite zero) and that loans (and maybe grants) be readily available. This is the Jim Robinson theory of helping people to help themselves. It is also a good step towards ensuring equality of opportunity and a good way of combatting the general notion held by many (who will remain nameless) that equality of *result* is the target that we should be shooting for.
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (06/28/85)
> In article <2102@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: > > Women : aprroximately 50% of the population. Probably close to that > > percentage of the work force. Average wage: 63% of the average > > male wage. If we assume women are not inherently inferior > > to men then we save approx. 25% of the labour cost component > > of goods (since we don't give that 50% of the people a 50% > > raise) directly by discriminating and suppressing this > > particular group of people. > > I do not see how direct discrimination and suppression results in this > wage gap. The way I see it women have the same choices that exist for When society : 1) decreases someones selfrespect; 2) continually tells them that certain positions/jobs are not for them (cause it's mens work); 3) continually tells them that certain kinds of knowledge/abilities (such as mechanical knowhow and mathematical reasoning) are beyond their capacities; etc. etc. Then it is a lot easier to convince them, as well, that: 1) they are lucky to have any kind of job so they better not complain if conditions are poor and pay is low; 2) that they shouldn't even expect to have a job/career that is rewarding since their primary goal should be to get married; 3) that it is their responsibility to find a man to support them and so their wages need not be adequate to support themselves in reasonable style; 4) there is no point in going on to a higher education since they are not really equipped for it; and 5) if they do want a higher education that they should stay out of science and similar technical areas since they are really not equipped for it. Note that we are not talking about an adult human being suddenly being faced with a bunch of bizzare/irrational predjudices and having a lifetime of experience/knowledge etc upon which to draw in dealing with them; this is a conditioning process which begins in infancy when the subject has zero chance to defend themselves. In addition until recently anyone who went against conventional behaviour was socially ostracized to the point where the subject of the conditioning probably couldn't find any countervailing examples even if they were aware enough to look for them. > for men, e.g. finish high school, get a university degree in medicine, > engineering, or whatever. That a significant percentage of women tend That just isn't so; women face a lot of obstacles from active harrasment to the basic fact that they are paid a lot less than men and so are less likely to be able to afford school. > to gravitate towards traditionally female careers (e.g. nursing) is But you see there is part of the problem; we have these traditionally female jobs and traditionally male jobs and significant pressure is place upon people to stay in their traditional roles. For many people you can replace the word "traditional" by "expected". Lest you think sex role training has no significant effect I suggest you try a small experiment. Do something that is harmless but that is definitely outside your normally defined sex role. Two suggestions (I am serious by the way): 1) wear a dress and walk down a street and have a beer in the Georgia (a vancouver bar for those who don't know), or 2) take a course in some traditionally female topic such as needlepoint or dressmaking and then make a point of telling people you know that you are doing so. Now take the reactions you get and imagine it every day of you life; even if a women does manage to overcome this kind of pressure just think of the energy she has to put into doing so that could have gone elsewhere. This general area (discrimination against women) is not something I am an expert on; perhaps someone in net.women could provide a more convincing case. > *not* because someone is denying them access to the type of training > or education that will result in high paying jobs. I suspect it is > due to the fact that only recently have women either wanted or had > to have well paying jobs (previously women were expected to marry > and, for the most part, be supported by their husbands). Since > this is a relatively new phenomenon it will take some time before > a new steady state is reached in which women make up 50% of > all engineering, medicine, plumbing, etc classes and hence 50% of > those professions, resulting in the average woman making 100% of what > the average male makes. > > > Who is talking about communism??????? Isn't that a little paranoid? > > Does a system where everyone is given equal opportunity (and not > > just lip service to the idea) mean communism? If a system does not > > The key phrase in the above is equal opportunity. As I said above > that exists for women now. It also exists, to a large extent, for > any and every group in *this* country. Because a particular group > has not taken advantage of the opportunities that exist is no > reason to raise the bogeyman of discrimination. Consider immigrants > from some mythical country. It is quite possible that in their > homeland job training and/or higher education were not given > much importance. Thus, once in Canada, they find themselves in a > country where the "old ways" just don't cut it anymore and their > present economic situation would reflect this. At this point > some would say that these people are being discriminated against. > I would totally disagree. They have the same access to > training and educational programs as everyone else and if they refuse If the programs even exist; last I heard your provincial government was cutting down on the ESL (english as a second language) programs/resources in the province. > to recognise the need to be trained and/or educated then even though > this is a regrettable state of affairs it is by no means discrimination. > > In conclusion the question should not be why does group A earn X% > of what group B does. The question should be *first* is group A doing > everything that it can to take advantage of the opportunities that > exist? If this is indeed the case, *then* the matter of disparate earnings *and* is anyone, in any way, holding those people back from taking advantage of those opportunities. > should be looked at, and if necessary some kind of AA policies instituted > so that group A is properly represented in the various professions and > job areas. > > J.B. Robinson > > P.S. As necessitated by my view of Utopia I support easy access to > job training and *retraining* programs and to post-secondary school > opportunities in general. I believe that tuition fees for such > schemes should be very modest (almost, but not quite zero) and that I think that is an excellent idea. But why not zero? It seems to me that society benefits when the average educational/skill level of the population rises so why not make it free. In the same way, if someone has become "obsoleted" and will have to go on welfare why not just send them to school/retraining for free instead of paying (probably) years of welfare - it's probably cheaper in the long run and society gets a newly productive member out of it. > loans (and maybe grants) be readily available. This is the Jim Well you have to watch that too; it's a pretty big handicap to come out of school with $10k-$20k of loans owing. I chose the alternative myself and worked my way through, but then it takes quite a bit longer. > Robinson theory of helping people to help themselves. It is also a > good step towards ensuring equality of opportunity and a good way of > combatting the general notion held by many (who will remain nameless) > that equality of *result* is the target that we should be shooting for. As long as everyone truly does have real equality of opportunity then that would be all I ask for, but I don't think you would claim that that is what we have now; until then looking at the result is a reasonable measure of how equal the opportunit really is.
robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (07/01/85)
In article <2128@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: >If the programs even exist; last I heard your provincial government was >cutting down on the ESL (english as a second language) programs/resources >in the province. Unless they changed the rules all immigrants have to know one of the two official languages. Thus, I would assume that the ESL program was directed at the children of immigrants. If indeed ESL is the quicker way of integrating these children into the mainstream, then it would appear that cutting back on the program was not one of the brighter moves of the Socreds. >> P.S. As necessitated by my view of Utopia I support easy access to >> job training and *retraining* programs and to post-secondary school >> opportunities in general. I believe that tuition fees for such >> schemes should be very modest (almost, but not quite zero) and that >I think that is an excellent idea. But why not zero? It seems to >me that society benefits when the average educational/skill level of >the population rises so why not make it free. In the same way, if >someone has become "obsoleted" and will have to go on welfare why >not just send them to school/retraining for free instead of paying >(probably) years of welfare - it's probably cheaper in the long >run and society gets a newly productive member out of it. I'm philosophically opposed to providing most things absolutely free. My reasoning is that they are ultimately *not* free and charging a token fee is as good as way as any to remind the beneficiary of this. Also, you are less likely to get abuses if the beneficiary has a (small) investment in his education/medical care/whatever. Thus, a modest $50 to $100 per term fee for university education would be what I'd seek. As for the suggestion concerning welfare recipients, I'd go a step further and make school/retraining mandatory for recipients who are neither physically nor mentally handicapped. The alternative would be to participate in some kind of community work. Naturally, recipients with dependents would either have to be excused or it would be necessary to provide day-care for said dependents. Somehow, I've never been able to come to grips with a system which *pays* those so inclined to stay home and kick back. >As long as everyone truly does have real equality of opportunity then >that would be all I ask for, but I don't think you would claim that >that is what we have now; until then looking at the result is a >reasonable measure of how equal the opportunit really is. Not entirely true. The examples of discrimination and suppression against women that Mr. Chapman makes are not nearly as true now as they were, say, thirty years ago. Moreover, this type of discrimination (or cultural bias) is rapidly diminishing. Thus, in my opinion, there exists a time lag which makes it difficult to look at the economic situation of *all* women *now* and from that observation determine the level of opportunity that exists for those women who did not grow up under those conditions. It would make much more sense to me to look at the economic situation of women who have been in the workforce for maybe the last five years, and compare that to the economic situation of men who have been working for the same five year period. I do not expect that the women in this sample would be making 100c to every dollar earned by men but I'm sure it would be significantly more than 62c. [It might also be useful to determine what kind of a trend exists. Thus we'd first do as suggested above and compare dollar earnings of men and women who have been in the workforce for the last five years. Next we'd look at those people who had been in the workforce for the last 10 years, and etc. If we end up with a rapidly increasing curve I'd say there is no urgent problem. On the other hand if this is not the case then measures of some kind may be needed] Thus I question Mr. Chapman's apparent solution to the problem which, if I got it right, was to raise women's salaries by 50%. This does zippo as far as increasing accessability into the non-traditional work areas goes. It also meddles in the already over regulated marketplace. Instead let's first get a *real* idea of where we stand concerning opportunities for women and then work on the means of increasing these opportunities if deemed necessary. Solutions such as "equal pay for work of equal value" are cosmetic, and thus do not address the real problem. J.B. Robinson
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (07/09/85)
> In article <2102@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: > > > > Women : aprroximately 50% of the population. Probably close to that > > percentage of the work force. Average wage: 63% of the average > > male wage. If we assume women are not inherently inferior > > to men then we save approx. 25% of the labour cost component > > of goods (since we don't give that 50% of the people a 50% > > raise) directly by discriminating and suppressing this > > particular group of people. > Well, the debate was on foreign figures, but I will tackle this domestic > issue. First, your assumption that "women are not inherently inferior to > men" doesn't quite apply. A large proportion of the difference between > total male and female earnings is due to the fact that men are still doing the > most important jobs in society. In the old days, men did them all and women > didn't work, so women earned a penny for every dollar men made. Does that > mean people were saving 99% of their costs by suppressing women? Hardly. {taking a long deep breath so as not to scream... this is going to be very very difficult......} {I am afraid I cannot respond to this without becoming nearly hysterical (how feminine of me indeed!) so I will have to resort to the most polite form of argumentation I can think of in this case: asking questions} {Here goes:} Brad, how do you define "the most important jobs in society"? I would like to remind you that without people, there wouldn't be a "society" therefore by definition, THE most important job in society is making people, a job which has traditionally been left entirely for women to do (except of course for the "fun part", a little fleeting moment in which men have never minded participating) and woen have been doing that without any pay until very recently. When I am talking about "making" people here, I am not just speaking of biology, but of the constant care and attention that is required to make sure that a small person survives physically and emotionally in a very hostile world. > We may not like the fact that men still rule the economy, but it makes your > figures meaningless. In the cases where women are paid less than men for > the same work, then you truly have unfair treatment of women. But such > unfair misuse of women is hardly the major cause of our economic prosperity. The main problem is not that women are paid less than men for the same work, but that they are not given a chance to do work that pays because they are so busy doing other work that doesn't pay. I know what's coming next: a tirade about women beeing FREE to do whatever work they want. Not until very recently. Look at any book on women history, Brad. Women who wanted to do "men's work" were not *allowed* to by men. And even when they are allowed, there are other less obvious weapons than the direct ones of stopping women from doing what they want. There are psychological weapons that work very well. I know what I speak of from experience. I was given reverse discrimination as a child, and if I hadn't been, I probably wouldn't be where I am (where am I? good question). The boys in our elementary school were told that they would fail because girls were better, and indeed, did they ever fail! most of them caught up with us girls pretty quickly as they did encounter people along the way who made matters better by telling them that boys were better. It is amazing how easily people can be manipulated, especially children! Here's a reference Brad: "how to suppress women's writing". I'll give you the author if you are interested. I can even lend you the book. When you read about the difficulties that women artists have encountered trying to write, or paint, or sculpt, you might be amazed, not that there were no women artists, but just that there were some who did succeed. And that is only for art! > If anything, misuse of good talent HURTS us rather than helps us. Indeed, but that doesn't mean that it hasn't been misused. Now, maybe I am too far behind on this newsgroup. Am I really the only one who objects to what was just said? Hello everybody? are there any women reading this newsgroup or what? how can anybody let something like that pass through? hello? hello? Back to you, Brad. Do you actually believe that you can have ONE theory such as survival of the fittest (or most intelligent in your case) describing *everything*? People of the net, do you actually believe that there is one theory in the world that explains everything: economics, politics, life, love, etc? what's going on here? are you all religious or something? doesn't anybody else worry about this trend in our net conversations? {back to work, back to work....} -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (07/09/85)
Here we go again, now from Jim Robinson: > I do not see how direct discrimination and suppression results in this > wage gap. The way I see it women have the same choices that exist for > for men, e.g. finish high school, get a university degree in medicine, > engineering, or whatever. That a significant percentage of women tend > to gravitate towards traditionally female careers (e.g. nursing) is > *not* because someone is denying them access to the type of training > or education that will result in high paying jobs. I suspect it is > due to the fact that only recently have women either wanted or had > to have well paying jobs (previously women were expected to marry > and, for the most part, be supported by their husbands). Since > this is a relatively new phenomenon it will take some time before > a new steady state is reached in which women make up 50% of > all engineering, medicine, plumbing, etc classes and hence 50% of > those professions, resulting in the average woman making 100% of what > the average male makes. > > J.B. Robinson Sure, women have the same choices NOW that boys had, but they didn't not too long ago. Don't any of you people have mothers? do you talk to them? try it one day, they might tell you about the "choices" they had in school. ok, ok, now we do have the same choices. I had all those choices. I didn't choose a traditionally "female" career. There were lots of counter-pressure on the way, and I was one of the lucky ones: I was in a girls school. Peer pressure was the most insidious discouragement and still is. Most important decisions in people's lives are not made for logical reasons, but for emotional ones. Where do you get your history from? do you think that the pre-our-time times consisted of a big suburbia? the middle class suburban family is a fairly recent phenomenon. Well into the middle of the 20th century only the upper and upper-middle class could afford the luxury of stay at home wives. "lower-class" women have always worked outside of their homes, either on farms, in the family business, and in industries after the industrial revolution. The wages were usually pitiful if any, but they sure worked outside of the home a well as inside. -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (07/09/85)
> > I do not see how direct discrimination and suppression results in this > > wage gap. The way I see it women have the same choices that exist for > > When society : 1) decreases someones selfrespect; 2) continually tells > them that certain positions/jobs are not for them (cause it's mens work); > 3) continually tells them that certain kinds of knowledge/abilities > (such as mechanical knowhow and mathematical reasoning) are beyond > their capacities; etc. etc. > > Then it is a lot easier to convince them, as well, that: 1) they are > lucky to have any kind of job so they better not complain if conditions > are poor and pay is low; 2) that they shouldn't even expect to have > a job/career that is rewarding since their primary goal should be to > get married; 3) that it is their responsibility to find a man to > support them and so their wages need not be adequate to support themselves > in reasonable style; 4) there is no point in going on to a higher > education since they are not really equipped for it; and 5) if they do > want a higher education that they should stay out of science and > similar technical areas since they are really not equipped for it. Thank you John. Some times being able to distance oneself emotionally does help one's argument a lot. -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (07/10/85)
>> > I do not see how direct discrimination and suppression results in this >> > wage gap. The way I see it women have the same choices that exist for >> >> When society : 1) decreases someones selfrespect; 2) continually tells >> them that certain positions/jobs are not for them (cause it's mens work); >> 3) continually tells them that certain kinds of knowledge/abilities >> (such as mechanical knowhow and mathematical reasoning) are beyond >> their capacities; etc. etc. >> >> Then it is a lot easier to convince them, as well, that: 1) they are >> lucky to have any kind of job so they better not complain if conditions >> are poor and pay is low; 2) that they shouldn't even expect to have >> a job/career that is rewarding since their primary goal should be to >> get married; 3) that it is their responsibility to find a man to >> support them and so their wages need not be adequate to support themselves >> in reasonable style; 4) there is no point in going on to a higher >> education since they are not really equipped for it; and 5) if they do >> want a higher education that they should stay out of science and >> similar technical areas since they are really not equipped for it. > I think that this is very true except for one thing - is it "society" or individuals that are doing this? When we are talking about employment and education, I take "society" to primarily mean personnel depts. and enrollment depts. in business and educational institutions. I don't think that is is fair to imply that these groups are primarily responsible for John's points 1 thru 3. Particularly because (for some reason) personnel depts. and enrollment depts. appear to be well above the 51% women figure. I think it would be a lot fairer to say that (by and large) it is another sector of society that are primarily responsible for these attitudes. In fact, I very much suspect that the worst offenders in this area are a person's relatives or friends. (Particularly in second generation Canadians originating from some ethnic groups. Some of these groups still have pre-natal marriages for gawd's sake!) (BTW: My mother had quite a fight on her hands from her uncles and grandfather when she wanted to go to University in the early 50's. She won, and the discrimination that she found at University was considerably less than what she found in her own family!) Other participants (managers, teachers etc.) are, I would suspect, usually somewhat "more professional" (and probably more "liberal") in their attitudes. Especially, in the light of what legal responses to institutional discrimination are now available. Big corporations take a very dim view of offenders of the equal access legislation. How do we handle that kind of familial discrimination? Compulsory re-education? Good grief! (Sorry Granddad, you have to leave the nursing home for an hour every day to take a course!) It's better to let it die out. I think that there are many factors in the current fact that certain groups of women are getting paid less than men doing obviously "similar value" jobs. One of them, of course, is a certain amount of discrimination. However, I greatly suspect that the main reasons for it are historical: 1) Women haven't been in the workforce in such large numbers for very long (and were, of course, considerably more discriminated against in the past). 2) The "traditional" women's jobs (until recently) were very rarely unionized. If they were, they were frequently not very aggressive. I think that this factor is probably the biggest influence. No wonder that secretaries are paid less than Janitors or Plumbers (or most of the other trades). Janitors and the other trades are "guilds" - they enforce a monopoly on who you can hire to do such jobs. And, if they choose to, they can go on strike (as they are now) and demand anything they want. The only counter-balancing factor is when the strike fund runs out. Secretaries (and probably lots of other "traditional" female occupations) ARE being paid too little. If they had a guild just like carpenters, they would probably be paid a lot more. (Mind you, frequently I think that the unionized trades are being paid too much!) Take a look at the professions, where very few unions exist - I suspect that you will find that equivalent experience people are being paid very similar wages, regardless of sex. -- Chris Lewis, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321
robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (07/11/85)
In article <1240@mnetor.UUCP> sophie@mnetor.UUCP writes: >Sure, women have the same choices NOW that boys had, but they didn't ---------------------------------------------- Glad to see someone finally admit it. >Where do you get your history from? do you think that the pre-our-time >times consisted of a big suburbia? the middle class suburban family is >a fairly recent phenomenon. Well into the middle of the 20th century >only the upper and upper-middle class could afford the luxury of stay >at home wives. "lower-class" women have always worked outside of their >homes, either on farms, in the family business, and in industries after >the industrial revolution. The wages were usually pitiful if any, but >they sure worked outside of the home a well as inside. If you take the time to reread what I wrote you'll see that I said: ".... due to the fact that only recently have women either wanted or had to have well paying jobs (previously women were expected to marry and, for the most part, be supported by their husbands). " The key phrases above are "well paying jobs" ( as opposed to any old job) and "for the most part". I.e. I did not at any time claim that working women are a new phenomenon. What I did claim was that previously women were expected to marry and it was expected that the husband would be the *main* income provider. Thus, there was no pressing need for the wife to have a *high income* job. What with single mothers and women marrying later in life (if at all) the situation has changed. Women now do need to have access to well paying jobs. And, it appears that Sophie Q. agrees that *today's* woman has "the same choices NOW that boys had". I'll admit that it's unlikely that the 55 year old secretary will ever be anything other than a secretary. However, there is no reason that the 15 year old high school girl cannot hope to, and one day succeed in, becoming a neuro-surgeon. As has been said by several the main problems today are cultural biases, e.g. Aunt Betsy just can't figure out why a "pretty" girl like Linda wants to be an EE instead of getting married and raising 1.8 kids, ***and*** Aunt Betsy does not mind telling Linda how she feels. Since there is still no reasonable way to legislate the thinking of the Aunt Betsys of the country (even if there were I wouldn't go for it) women (and men) will just have to wait until the Aunt Betsys (and Uncle Georges) have gone on to the big suburban duplex in the sky. The impression I get is that many feminists are ranting and raving about conditions that existed 20 years ago. These conditions, for the most part, no longer exist. However, these feminists seem to get a great deal of pleasure in pointing to the 55 year old secretary, who, I admit, never really had the opportunity to be anything else, and holding her out as an example of *today's* discrimination. It don't make sense to me, but then again I guess I'm just one of them thare male chauvinist swine. I know if I had a daughter I would be encouraging her to go to university and become a professional. I, also, honestly cannot think of any of my friends who would hold a different opinion. So, just maybe, if we wait just a while longer 50% of all doctors, engineers, plumbers, lawyers, etc will be women and the question of whether to legislate equality of result (gag me with two spoons) will be moot. J.B. Robinson
clarke@utcsri.UUCP (Jim Clarke) (07/11/85)
Jim Robinson (hope I've got my attribution right this time!) responds to Sophie Quigley by saying that all women now have the opportunity to become EE's, doctors, lawyers, plumbers, etc., and don't have to become secretaries any more. I think this is a little beside the point, which is that secretarying is a job of low prestige and low pay, largely because "even a woman can do it". (That's a generic quotation, not attributable to any individual in this newsgroup.) 100 or so years ago, being somebody's secretary was special: you checked his mail (yup: "his", of course), wrote his simpler corres- pondence, vetted his visitors, set up his timetable, and so on. All the things secretaries do, in fact. But because you were generally a man, secretarying had high prestige and high pay. Pay you less than the gardener? Horrors! You're a gentleman, and the gardener's not. The janitor?! Give me a nineteenth-century break! Much as I am proud of my university and universities in general as a manifesta- tion of western civilization, and glad though I am that I personally received a university education (I'd make a lousy gardener or plumber), still I do not think that higher education should be the standard route to improvement for a group as a whole. Should women who want to do better go to university? Yes. Should women as a group all go to university as the means to women's betterment? Certainly not. -- Jim Clarke Undergraduate Secretary (<-- see what I mean?) Dept of Computer Science University of Toronto
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (07/11/85)
> In article <1240@mnetor.UUCP> sophie@mnetor.UUCP writes: > >Sure, women have the same choices NOW that boys had, but they didn't > ---------------------------------------------- > Glad to see someone finally admit it. > But by the reasoning you provided in the rest of your article below (actually I think I hit DD a couple of times too many, sorry) they don't. As you have said friends/family etc. will provide a lot of counter pressure to females who wish to make non traditional choices. Thus while they may theoretically have the same choices, practically they dont't. . . . > today are cultural biases, e.g. Aunt Betsy just can't figure out why a > "pretty" girl like Linda wants to be an EE instead of getting married > and raising 1.8 kids, ***and*** Aunt Betsy does not mind telling Linda > how she feels. Since there is still no reasonable way to legislate > the thinking of the Aunt Betsys of the country (even if there were I > wouldn't go for it) women (and men) will just have to wait until the > Aunt Betsys (and Uncle Georges) have gone on to the big suburban > duplex in the sky. What about when Uncle George is ther personnel manager or owner of a firm? Then those cultural biases affect a lot more than relatives and friends. > > The impression I get is that many feminists are ranting and raving > about conditions that existed 20 years ago. These conditions, for > the most part, no longer exist. However, these feminists seem to > get a great deal of pleasure in pointing to the 55 year old secretary, > who, I admit, never really had the opportunity to be anything else, and > holding her out as an example of *today's* discrimination. It don't make > sense to me, but then again I guess I'm just one of them thare male > chauvinist swine. Well you didn't take my last suggestion for an experiment I guess but heres a *very* simple one. I don't think you would argue that clerical occupations are quite low paid. Go into your local high school and ask them how many are taking the office skills types of courses (i.e. courses/program to teach people how to be good clerks, secretaries etc). Now find out how many are male. Not too many I bet. I also doubt that the young women taking these courses are doing so because of any biological prediliction to typing. > > I know if I had a daughter I would be encouraging her to go > to university and become a professional. I, also, honestly cannot > think of any of my friends who would hold a different opinion. > So, just maybe, if we wait just a while longer 50% of all > doctors, engineers, plumbers, lawyers, etc will be women and the question > of whether to legislate equality of result (gag me with two spoons) > will be moot. > > J.B. Robinson
peterr@utcsri.UUCP (Peter Rowley) (07/11/85)
Not long ago, a group in Toronto (the Social Planning Council, I think, but I might be wrong) studied racial discrimination in Toronto by sending out test applicants to various employers. Through use of scripts, etc., they were made as equally qualified as possible. It was found that the white applicants received many times the number of offers that non-white applicants did. This study was not done for women, but it is indicative that, unlike we would like to believe, there is significant discrimination in Canada, even on a corporate level. As for discrimination on a family level, I don't think we have to give up on those people who (someone said, condescendingly) are due to go to a duplex in the sky. Role models can make a big difference to some. I am reasonably sure that Sally Ride's shuttle trip, as hyped as it was, did change some peoples' minds about what women can do. Perhaps all the hype was distasteful to some, but if it acts both to open doors (make people (both men and women) more accepting of women in technical positions) and to push women on (by showing them that someone they can identify with "made it"), then we will have moved further toward true equality of opportunity. I use "equality of opportunity" with some trepidation. Does it mean that if I decide to do something, that I will encounter only those obstacles that everyone else does? Or does it also mean that I should have the same degree of *belief* that I can succeed at that something? Whatever your own definition, I think you will agree that we will not get equal participation in the work force until both parts of the above definition are satisifed. p. rowley, U. Toronto utcsri!peterr
robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (07/12/85)
In article <1246@utcsri.UUCP> peterr@utcsri.UUCP (Peter Rowley) writes: >As for discrimination on a family level, I don't think we have to give >up on those people who (someone said, condescendingly) are due to go to >a duplex in the sky. True. It was a rather condescending statement. My apologies to the Aunt Betsys, Uncle Georges, and any LDSs (among others) out there. >I use "equality of opportunity" with some trepidation. Does it mean that >if I decide to do something, that I will encounter only those obstacles >that everyone else does? Or does it also mean that I should have the >same degree of *belief* that I can succeed at that something? I tend to think of the first part of the above when I think of "equality of opportunity". If that is fulfilled then it is just a matter of time before the second part will be fulfilled as well. Jim Robinson
peterr@utcsri.UUCP (Peter Rowley) (07/12/85)
>> : me (peterr@utcsri) > : Jim Robinson (robinson@ubc-cs) : me again >>I use "equality of opportunity" with some trepidation. Does it mean that >>if I decide to do something, that I will encounter only those obstacles >>that everyone else does? Or does it also mean that I should have the >>same degree of *belief* that I can succeed at that something? > >I tend to think of the first part of the above when I think of "equality >of opportunity". If that is fulfilled then it is just a matter of >time before the second part will be fulfilled as well. If it were Jim Robinson that were disadvantaged for "just a matter of time" (which may well be decades if not generation), then he might see the situation as somewhat more urgent. peter rowley, U. Toronto {allegra, cornell, decvax, ihnp4, linus, utzoo}!utcsri!peterr
robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (07/15/85)
In article <2178@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: > But by the reasoning you provided in the rest of your article > below (actually I think I hit DD a couple of times too many, sorry) > they don't. As you have said friends/family etc. will provide a lot of > counter pressure to females who wish to make non traditional choices. Thus > while they may theoretically have the same choices, practically they > dont't. I am yet to hear of a viable means of changing Aunt Betsy's mind concerning the role of women. [It's interesting to note that we're now getting into religious freedom, since several religions do indeed consider the woman's place to be in the home. I imagine they would consider any government action designed to promote otherwise to be an infringement of that freedom.] > What about when Uncle George is ther personnel manager or owner of > a firm? Then those cultural biases affect a lot more than relatives > and friends. True. There should be a means by which our fictitious Linda could charge dear old Uncle George with refusing to hire her because of her sex. Also, if found guilty he should receive more than the proverbial slap on the wrist. Alternatively, some kind of AA program could be introduced. > Well you didn't take my last suggestion for an experiment I guess > but heres a *very* simple one. I don't think you would argue that > clerical occupations are quite low paid. Go into your local high > school and ask them how many are taking the office skills types > of courses (i.e. courses/program to teach people how to be good > clerks, secretaries etc). Now find out how many are male. Not > too many I bet. I also doubt that the young women taking these > courses are doing so because of any biological prediliction to > typing. Nothing personal but I didn't consider the earlier suggested experiment to be too terribly relevant. As for the latest one: I agree with you 110%. Our school system is, in this respect, letting us down (my impression). As far as I know they are *not* going out of their way to encourage females to enter non-traditional areas. This would seem to me to be one of the best places to attack the problem. Such an approach makes sense because, to a large extent, it is attacking the *cause* of the problem (cultural biases) and not the *symptom* (low wages). Of course there may be problems with parents who believe that the gov't, via the school system, is interfering with their right to raise their children as they see fit, but then again nuthin's perfect now is it. Jim Robinson
robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (07/17/85)
>>> : (peterr@utcsri) >> : Jim Robinson (robinson@ubc-cs) > : (Peter Rowley again) > >>>I use "equality of opportunity" with some trepidation. Does it mean that >>>if I decide to do something, that I will encounter only those obstacles >>>that everyone else does? Or does it also mean that I should have the >>>same degree of *belief* that I can succeed at that something? >> >>I tend to think of the first part of the above when I think of "equality >>of opportunity". If that is fulfilled then it is just a matter of >>time before the second part will be fulfilled as well. > >If it were Jim Robinson that were disadvantaged for "just a matter of time" >(which may well be decades if not generation), then he might see the >situation as somewhat more urgent. I wrote that I consider "equality of opportunity" to mean that "if I decide to do something, that I will encounter only those obstacles that everyone else does." I also said that once this is achieved it will be just a matter of time before I (or whoever) actually *believes* this. Assuming my version of "equality of opportunity" is achieved I see no reason to believe that it will take "decades" for this fact to be discovered. The gov't has the best propaganda machine in the country and we all know that they don't mind blowing their own horn. Also, I am extremely hard pressed to define disadvantaged as: "someone who lives in a *truly* non-discriminatory society yet, for some reason, does not believe it". [Given the context in which he is using the term it would appear that that is the meaning that Peter Rowley is assigning to the word.] Sorry, as far as I am concerned, if nobody is discriminating against you then you are *not* "disadvantaged". In conclusion, if we are going to use Mr. Rowley's rather creative version of "disadvantaged" then he is very wrong. I would not see the situation as "somewhat more urgent" even if the so-called "disadvantaged" person did happen to be me. Attitude problems of people who *incorrectly* believe they are being discriminated against should not be the concern of the government. Jim Robinson
idallen@watmath.UUCP (08/05/85)
> Attitude problems of people who *incorrectly* believe they are being > discriminated against should not be the concern of the government. > -- Jim Robinson Reminded me of Orwell's 1984 -- you know, where They didn't want him to just say he saw four fingers, They wanted him to really *believe* it. They succeeded. We have too. Lots of disadvantaged people (such as women) have been beaten, brainwashed, and bullied into believing they can't succeed. They even think other people like themselves can't succeed. In fact, it's almost essential for a diadvantaged's own self-image that s/he doesn't consider a peer as more able to succeed, no? I mean, if I thought that I, as a member of disadvantaged class X, had equal opportunity to succeed, how would I explain my current dismal existence? Better to keep thinking I'm disadvantaged, and better to not let any of my peers get ahead of me to make me feel really foolish for thinking I'm disadvantaged. I may feel dismal for being disadvantaged, but that's not half as bad as what I'd feel like if I "admitted" I now had equal chance to succeed. Zap an organism until it's afraid to move forward, and then stop zapping. It won't move forward. It will even scream if you try to push it forward. Do you stand back, wave your hands righteously and claim it is "incorrectly" afraid of moving forward, because it has the wrong "attitude"? -- -IAN! (Ian! D. Allen) University of Waterloo