Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 10:07:18 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: "No Cost" Family Leave Bill

>> Note that Peter's argument is changing.  Before he asserted that
>> unpaid leave (with benefits) was profitable to the companies.  Now
>> he's claiming that it is beneficial to society.  (BTW - The elected
>> legislature didn't decide that they were beneficial to society, it
>> decided that they were politically appropriate.)  Oops....
>
>Wrong, I make both arguments.

Wrong.  Peter went with one argument for quite a while and has now
introduced another.  That's a change.

>Companies with generous benefit plans profit by having lower turnover
>and higher productivity.

No matter how generous?  Does the level of profitable generosity vary
between industries?  Does Peter really want to argue that successful
companies can consistently be wrong?  (His claim that they have to be
forced to do so relies on that.)

>And, family leave is also beneficial to the society as a whole.

Note the lack of evidence.

>It's too bad that some business owners don't see this, just as some others
>didn't see that employing six-year-olds in textile mills was a bad idea.

"Govt did something that was good, therefore this proposal is good".
What an argument.

>> Try again.  I've shown that the relevant parties think that the costs
>> exceed the benefits.
>
>In a democracy, "relevant parties" may be a larger group than you think.
>And your "relevant parties" might not have a big enough spreadsheet.

A democracy will try to vote itself rich.  A democracy loves to take
money from "them".  "Democracy" is merely an implementation of
"might", not of "right".

>> Errors by insiders are corrected by the market; losers fail, and they
>> do so with their money.  Peter likes to gamble with other people's
>> money.
>
>Nobody's forcing them to operate.  Isn't that the argument they always
>hand to the workers: "Nobody's forcing you to work here!"?

In one case, no one is stopping them from working somewhere else, yet
the family leave bill is different.  What was it we heard about "Love
it or Leave it"?

>And if you think that the only thing lost is "their money" you're living
>in a fool's paradise.  When the losers fail, lots of people who never
>had the first chance to influence the running of the business, or to
>have a share of the profits, get hurt.

And, why should they get a vote?  They didn't put anything in and they
got compensated for their time.  All they lost was their job and
they're no worse off than they were before they got it.  The job
provider is out the resources needed to create that job.

>> We're now seeing estimates of the costs of the family leave bill by
>> its advocates.  They're quite low.  Let's see how accurate they are;
>> let's pay for the program using tax dollars.  If the advocates are
>> right, that won't be much, if any money, and if they're wrong, we all
>> pay for it.  Surely they're sure enough of their numbers to risk money
>> on them.  What?  Even they don't believe the numbers if they'll lose
>> if they're wrong?
>
>While we're at it, why don't we pay all of their other expenses as
>well?  We pay the expenses, they get to keep the profits.  Let's make
>free enterprise REALLY free!

Nice sarcasm, but it missed the point.

The companies in question don't think that Peter's proposals are profitable
for them.   Peter insists that the proposals are profitable for society,
so why shouldn't society pay for the benefits it receives?

Oh, I get it.  It's a free lunch whenever "society" can shift costs.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU