Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Pessimism
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:30:02 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Sep30.205529.494@cas.org> cwm54@cas.org writes:

>>>>>      In a capitalist society there are always going to be fewer jobs
>>>>>     than workers.

>>>>Why?  Ever hear of a labor shortage?  For example, Miami has one right
>>>>now.

>>>  Miami is a unique community. When everyone who is qualified for a job can
>>>  get a job come talk to me, otherwise shove your "labor shortage".

>>Well, you claimed always.  I provided a counterexample.  If you claim
>>always I only need one.

>    Extremely weak arguement. There may be a labor shortage at the local
>    bowling alley but in toto my initial statement still stands 

What does toto mean in this context?  An entire city?  A state?  A
country?  Personally, I think that a geographic locale large enough
that people who want jobs in it have to move into it is good enough.

>    and if
>    you don't know that EVERY economist would agree then you aren't worthy
>    to tie my shoes,let alone debate me. Economist will disagree on the
>    extent of unemployment but not that it is a built in function of
>    capitalism.

Sure, but this is different than too many jobs and too few workers.

You see, in a healthy economy jobs appear and disappear, people enter
and leave the work force, and people quit and then get rehired.  In
each case you have an unemployed person jobhunting for a while.

That has nothing to do with the question of whether the number of jobs
without workers can be larger than the number of workers without jobs.

>>burgers, etc. becasue they couldn't find people locally.  I'm not sure
>>if that situation has changed or not, but it is another counter-example.

>      Again you're speaking locally AND to use a fast food chain as
>      an example is pitiful. 

Not "a".  Many.

>      The only thing those jobs are good for
>      is pocket change for a teenager. It is not a job people can
>      live on.

It is not a job people want to live on.  It is a job that many do live
on.  It's going to be a while before we produce enough that we can all
drive Cadillacs.  It's going to take an awful lot of growth.

>      I guarantee you there are no shortages local or otherwise for jobs
>      paying enough to live on. 

Sure there are.  For example, the unemployment rate in Taiwan - the
entire country - is 2%.  If you live in Taiwan and you have the skills
for a good paying job you can get one.

>      With millions of people unemployed do you
>      really think it's because they're lazy? 

Of course not.  It's because there is a recession on.  

Let's get something straight.  You are claiming that capitalism means
there can never be enough jobs.  That's nonsense.  Sometimes there are
more jobs than people.  Sometimes it is the other way arround.  

You are claiming as evidence of your point the fact that today there
are more people than jobs in the US.  So what?  Totally irrelevant.
It's like claiming sin X is always negative because it is negative at
270 degrees and 630 degrees and 990 degrees and you can show me a
million more.

>      How many jobs have you seen
>      vacant because no one is qualified?

Virtually none because when no one is qualified you take someone who
isn't and hope you are wrong.  That's how I got my first promotion -
there weren't any qualified people available in Vermont that we could
find, so they let me see if I could hack it.

>>On the other hand, it is totally clear that they can start out naked
>>with nothing and build themselves houses and farm land and domesticate
>>wild animals and that both can end up mcuh better off than they were
>>before.  In that sense you are totally wrong.

>	You've been watching to many westerns. The world has changed. In the
>	old days a down and out fellow could go west where no one lived and
>	build a house from trees, hunt for his food,dig a well and open
>	up a rest stop for people traveling further west etc..The economy
>	was in fact expanding. A homeless or unemployed person NOW cannot
>	get land,food or anything else. 

Please don't distort my arguments.  My point was a reductio ad
absurdum of your claim that capitalism is a zero sum game.  I gave a
clear example of a non-sero sum case. I am not claiming that my
particular example is practical today, but I didn't need to do that
because you weren't talking about today.  Your claim was about
capitalism in general.  Now if you want to admit you were wrong and
make a tighter claim, fo right ahead.

Also, your claim about the economy expanding... you seem to be
implying that it is no longer expanding.  Well, today you are right,
but four years ago it was.  Everyone expects it to expand again.  So
what is your point?

>       Just being willing to work hard is
>	no longer enough. 

It never was.  You also had to be reasonably intelligent.

>       Being better off is a misleading term. I may
>       be better 
>       off than a person in Africa  but worse off than a white person of
>	less ability.  Am I happy?

Probably not.  Another key point - the poor will always be with us.
Why?  Because when the average American drives a Caddy the folks with
Hondas will consider themselves poor.

As far as your particular example goes, does it matter how the white
guy gets his money?  For example, I think 99% of the people on the net
have mor ability than the average Kennedy.  So should we be unhappy
because they have mor emoney than us because they inherited Grandpa
Joe's bootlegging millions?

>       It all boils down to you believing that
>	racism exist but it isn't bad enough to keep us from being anything
>	we want to be. I say it's worse than you could ever imagine.

Empirical fact - I bump into blacks at the top of the software
industry.  Not many, I'll admit, but some.  That's pretty clear proof
that racism may make succeeding tougher, but it doesn't make it
impossible.

>>>>>     When I open a restaurant someone else
>>>>>     goes out of business because there are only so many dollars to be
>>>>>     spent on entertainment. These are the cold hard facts. But you NEVER
>>>>>     hear those with a voice explain this reality. This is the core of
>>>>>     the problem.

>>>>Actually, they don't explain this 'reality' because it is not reality.
>>>>If it was then our average standard of living would be the same as it
>>>>was 2,000 years ago - after all, how could it possibly improve if
>>>>every success was accompanied by an equal and opposite failure?

>>>   Ever hear of a mature economy, dope.

>>Sure, and in fact in a zero growth economy you would be right.  We
>>don't have a zero growth economy.

>       The point is I really don't believe the economy will ever grow
>       the way it did before other countries began modernization.

So how much growth do you want?  Taiwan is growing at somwhere arround
7% a year and they are pretty modernized.

Of course they have a different culture - 30% savings rate, no capital
gains tax, etc. but they do prove it is possible.

>       Americans are not superior beings.  World-wide competition is
>       here to stay and Americans must learn that they will most
>       probably have a reduced standard of living. 

Yes and no.  Why should world wide competition reduce our standard of
living?  

>       With what do you
>       replace high wage factory work. 

Part of the answr is you don't.  The move offshore is temporary.  Take
a look at the Japanese - they started manufacturing locally.  Then
they went to Korea, Hong Kong, and Taiwan.  Then they moved to the
Phillippines.  Now they are putting factories in China.  Where will
they go when wages in China start going up?

As the factories move into the Third World wages go up.  It becomes
less and less cost effective to move factories there.  Meanwhile,
their people start buying stuff from us.

The more correct you are about international competition then the
faster this process will occur.

>       I don't see a substitute with
>       or without a college educated populace.

There is plenty...

First off, you need people to create the export goods...

1.  Entertainment

2.  Financial services

3.  High-tech R&D

4.  High-tech products  (includes low tech products made cheaply by
using high-tech methods)

5.  Limited services

6.  Tourism

7.  Education

8.  Food (everything from grain and fish to frozen sushi exported to
Japan)

Then you need people to take care of the people who bring money into
the country.  That's everything from hookers to house builders.

>  With westward expansion followed
>>>   by modernization sure there is going to be a rise in the standard of
>>>   living,however there comes a point when the economy changes to one
>>>   of maintenance when most people have their VCR's, two car etc..Then
>>>   they buy products less frequently.

>>Ever hear of planned obsolescence?  People who have to have the newest
>>models of everything?  Yuppies?

>      Your first legitimate point EXCEPT that I will argue that there is
>      a huge difference between the rush created by the introduction
>      of the CD player and the people who will purchase a more advanced
>      model. 

Which is why the electronics industry is pushing DAT.

>      Also, I don't see how that helps the US very much since as I
>      stated before, developing countries can buy the technology and run.
>      I don't see how we(?)can stop them short of serious protectionism.

Protectionism won't stop them.  How can it?

Sure, they can buy the technology, but they will take many decades to
catch up with our technological infrastructure.  Meanwhile, we can
sell them stuff.  They may assemble the VCR in Burma, but the chips
will be made in the developed world and shipped there.

>>>   Added to that problem is the
>>>   modernization of the rest of the world lagging behind. When those
>>>   countries,like Korea,begin to build factories,your precious capitalist
>>>   without regard for social concerns,take jobs there. Why would a business
>>>   man pay an American twenty dollars an hour when he can pay a Korean three
>>>   dollars a day.

>>No reason at all.  Why should an American be paid twenty dollars a day
>>unless he can produce 6.66 times as much as a Korean paid three
>>dollars a day?

>     What's your point? My point is the US IS losing jobs to korea et
>     al.

A bit, but if you check it out the amount is quite small and we make
it up on the other side - all those Korean factory workers want
Madonna and Michael Jackson tapes.

Also, Korea has been building factories for twentyfive years now.  In
fact, their companies are going offshore for cheap labor now.

My main point, however, is that repetitive manufacturing that requires
few skills is not worth any more than flipping burgers.  The reason it
has traditionally paid more is unions.  International competition is
beginning to make that impossible.  Therefore, there will be an
adjustment in the economy with the relative wages paid for different
jobs changing radically.

>     I see NO incentive for that trend not to continue. You blow it off
>     as if it isn't a major concern. Millions of people think otherwise.

Millions of people are idiots.  Appeal to majority opinion is a pretty
worthless debating tactic.

Some good evidence that those people are wrongare the studies on
NAFTA.  The only one that didn't show us gaining more jobs and wages
in export industries than we lost in manufacturing and agriculture was
sponsored by the unions.  Needless to say, they are anti-NAFTA because
the sectors that will be hurt are all highly unionized.

>>>   If you expect the US to do what no other country EVER
>>>   has, that is continue to have an ever expanding economy, you're as stupid
>>>   as I think you are.

>>Well, we haven't done that either.  A recession is a period of
>>negative economic growth and we have had our share.  On the other
>>hand, the West as a whole has been steadily growing for the past 1,000
>>years.  Individual parts have had economic downturns, but they have
>>always caught up and continued to grow.  If you think that's going to
>>change I think the burden of proof is on you.

>    For the past thousand years you guys have always found someone to exploit.
>    You've run out of Indians.

So now you are claiming that capitalism needs an exploited underclass
to succeed.  Why?  What is your rationale?

>>>>Well, that may be true at Chemical Abstracts Services but it's not
>>>>true where I work.  In a competitive environment you can't afford to
>>>>have that attitude.  I'm doing new product development right now so I
>>>>don't have people working for me, but a year ago when I was a
>>>>development manager for one of our financial products I was barely
>>>>hanging on by my fingernails.  I guarantee to you that the only things
>>>>I worried about in the people who worked for me was how much work I
>>>>could get out of them and how good it would be without making them
>>>>decide that their salaries just weren't worth the pain.  I didn't give
>>>>a damn what sex or race they were.

>>>>If people at CAS have time to worry about that kind of irrelevancy
>>>>maybe you are overstaffed.

>>>    As employers go Chemical Abstracts is a pretty nice place to work. I have
>>>    worked at places not so pleasant or tolerant. It has it's problems but I
>>>    was not speaking about CAS.

>>So CAS is an exception to your rule?  How many exceptions are there?
>>Are they the rule rather than the exception?

>      Chemical Abstracts is the exception primarily because there are
>    and extraordinary amount of people who are originally from other
>    countries. Whites don't dominate numerically like they do in most
>    companies BUT even so they dominate in managerial positions. It is a
>    nice place to work RELATIVE to many other places but it still is not
>    "right".

Interesting.  Why do you think that having foreigners reduces racism?
I have seen more blatant racism expressed by Koreans, Chinese,
Indians, Arabs, and Mexicans than I have ever seen expressed by
whites.  

(I'm talking personal experience here - not KKK rallies on TV.)

>>>    You know, every white person I know "doesn't
>>>    give a damn about sex or race". It's always "someone else".

>>Well, in general, you can't afford to be racist unless you have a lot
>>of excess capacity arround.

>	    Bull

What do you mean, "Bull"?

If my career depends on bringing a product out the door and I asked
for ten people and my management gives me eight can I afford to reject
a competent person because of the color of his/her skin?  Not unless
being a racist is more important to me than my career.

>>>    Though EVERY
>>>    statistic shows we don't even approach getting our fair share of the
>>>    pie, we must be imagining discrimination.

>>1.  Ther eis obviously some racism, the question is how much.

>	  Ahhh..there it is. Trust me, there's enough to make this whole
>      country explode if things don't change and if people like you don't
>      stop telling us we're imagining perceived wrongs.

That a threat?  Because if it is, please remember that in a nation
wide race war it's pretty clear who the winners would be.

>>2.  It is equally obvious that there are plenty of other possible
>>causes for blacks having a smaller than average share of the nation;s
>>economic pie besides racism.

>>             Such as?

Such as blacks being, on average, less educated.

Now the cause of that may be racism in the past, but current attitudes
have no effect on it.

>>>      I no longer believe capitalism is an impartial,color-blind "religion"
>>>    that rewards people solely on their ability.

>>Well of course not.

>>1.  It isn't a religion.

>>2.  It doesn't reward anybody.

>>3.  Luck, shmoozing, having rich parents, and marrying the boss's
>>daughter are all just as important as having ability.

>	1) Did you see my quote marks...jeez

Yup.  So what?  If you didn't mean religion then why did you write it?

>	2) Oh really?

Really.  Capitalism never rewarded me.  People did.

>	3) It's difficult to schmooze in restricted clubs

Yup.  How many people in your generation do you know who are members
of such clubs?  They are dying.  Most of the schmoozing I've done has
been in bars, restaurants, and peoples' offices.

>	   Because of racism not too many of us have rich parents.

Totally correct.  That is a legacy of yesterday's racism.  Eliminating
racism today would have no effect on it. 

>	   Heaven forbid the boss would let me marry his honey p...
>	   little white girl.

Well, most girls today don't pay too much attention to Daddy's
attitudes on who they should marry.  Admittedly, it may not endear you
to him, however.

>       Darn, again we're out of the loop.

Only if you don't get into it.

>>>    If that is true then the
>>>    corollary is that blacks are a dumb or lazy group relative to ALL
>>>    others because we certainly don't get equal rewards proportionately.

>>So then what do you think the cause is?  After all, I gurantee to you
>>that the economics itself can't even tell what color your skin is,
>>never mind discrimminate based on it.

>	     I'm dumb. Please explain.

You started this by claiming that the problems blacks have were caused
by capitalism.  That's why I responded - I don't bother responding to
the usual claims that it's all the fault of whites.

I am pointing out that this is nonsense.

>>>>>      that they "only need that piece of paper" and being devasted when
>>>>>      a white high school graduate with less senority, who they trained
>>>>>     0 becomes their boss.

>>>>Well, if they think that that piece of paper is all they needed then I
>>>>am hardly surprised that they didn't become managers.  A diploma gets
>>>>your foot in the door.  That's it.

>>>       For us it gets our mop in the door. That's it.

>>My.  Maybe you should tell that to some of the blacks who work in
>>important positions in Oracle.

>>> We rarely get promoted like whites but thats probably because we're either
>>> stupid or don't work as hard.It couldn't have anything to do with color?
>>> Nah, never.

>>Well, if color is the only reason then why aren't blacks all building
>>their own companies?  The answer is that some are (TLC Beatrice, for
>>example) but most aren't.

>	 Color is not the only reason but it the dominant reason.

Thanks.  I'll agree with this if you'll agree that the dominant part
of that is past injustice, not present.

>	I know nothing of Oracles inner workings. If blacks are in
>	important positions in significant numbers it IS the exception

In significant numbers?  No.  There aren't significant numbers of
blacks in the software industry or even taking comp sci in the top
colleges so I doubt you are going to find any reasonably large
software company with lots of blacks.

>>>>seniority should be a factor when it's promotion time?  Maybe in
>>>>places like IBM, but not in companies that are growing.

>>>  Not THE factor but a factor.

>>Why should it even be a factor?  Promote based on ability, not how
>>long people have served.

>    At this point in our history I would rather be judged by an objective
>    criteria than one so abstract as ability. There's room for mischief
>    with ambiguities.

Maybe, but in that case you'll tend to find your 'objective' company
going out of business while the subjective companies eat your lunch.

>>>  Last hired and all...

>>Again, not in growing companies.

>	 Wrong!!!

Really?  Look at fast growing companies.  When they fire people it's
because they are no good, not because they haven;t been with the
company for a while.

That's true because growing companies, by definition, aren't laying
people off.   They only fire people for cause.

>>>  but it's funny how
>>>  when a HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE with less senority becomes your boss all of
>>>  a sudden "you do a great job, it's just that we feel Bob has more of the
>>>  traits for supervision..." Hmmm, go figure.

>>Yeah, do.  Do you really need a college degree to supervise a bunch of
>>burger flippers?  Is it even relevant?  Probably not.  To be a
>>programmer?  Usually, but interestingly enough I know a highschool
>>graduate who is a quite senior manager at a software company.
>>Interestingly enough, he is black.  Just for another datapoint, Larry
>>Ellison, the CEO of Oracle (and a white) also never graduated from
>>college.  Hmm, go figure.

>	Master ellison proves my point don't you think?

Huh?  You mean you think he's CEO instead of a better qualified black
because he's white?  You are wrong because

A.  He founded the company and proved he could run it from the start

and

B.  If the board really believed a college degree was necessary they
could easily find a white with a college degree.

The point it proves is that educational level is much less important
than proven ability.

>     For all the blacks who have made it fairly or otherwise there
>     are thousands who have not gotten a fair shake.

Given that well over .1% of blacks have "made it" at least the way I
define making it your claim is obviously false.

>>>>but I'll need three promotions in that time to match where he
>>>>is now.

>>>     The standard arguement. Can you spell TOKEN?

>>Sure, except I know these people.  They aren't tokens.  They have
>>reputations within their companies as people who do good work and who
>>you come to if you want advice on a problem.  Tokens get shunted into
>>HR and other non-critical areas.

>    A token does not to be a goof off. A smart company will USE a very
>    competent person to say," Look how fair I am." 

Motivation please?  Seems to me a smart company will get the maximum
use out of people regardless of skin color.  That's how you screw the
competition.  To quote our CEO, "It's not enough that we win.
Everyone else has to lose."  You don't do that by not taking full
advantage of your people.

>    They are in those
>    positions because they are black even though they and a few others
>    probably should have been there years earlier.

Interesting since three year ago the folks I'm thinking of were,
respectively, in college and in their first year with Oracle.  You
don't put people who are fresh out of college into upper level
positions immediately.  You let them prove their competence.

>>>Besides,
>>>I never said ALL whites are racist just you and millions of others.

>>Now, on what basis do you draw that conclusion about me?

>       To insinuate that we aren't where we should be because of reasons
>       other than race is by extension saying we are inferior beings.

Is that really the only possible reason other than racism?

>       For
>       no one could reasonably argue that we  approach parity in any endeavor
>       with whites of comparable qualifications.To me that spells racist.

For an obvious counterexample, I'll point to sports.  Music is also a
possibility, but I don;t know the income breakdown so I can't be sure.

>>>>>        In short if everyone in this country has a college education
>>>>>      then college grads will be cleaning toilets and sweeping streets,
>>>>>      and guess who that will be. Until Americans admit that because of
>>>>>      our economic system(I make no judgements on the right or wrong of
>>>>>      it),"the poor will always be with us" and because of racism the poor
>>>>>      will always be disproportinately black; and poverty breeds
>>>>>      violence.

>>>>Mind explaining why I can't substitute Chinese for black in the
>>>>sentence above?

>>>     Whites always try to equate other ethnics to us. Orientals do not
>>>   come with the baggage of "inferiority".

>>They did 100 years ago.  What changed?

>    I beg to differ. Oriental came with the baggage of" difference" not
>    inferiority.

Believe me - a hundred years ago they were seen as way inferior.  If
you don;t know that check your history.

>>>   In our glorious,perfect consti-
>>>   tution Chinese aren't three-fifths a person.

>>Interestingly enough, blacks weren't either.  Slaves were.

>       Jeez...name me a few of those white slaves. Your arguements are
>       usually wrong but not THIS weak.

No white slaves, but there were black free men.

>>>   Different motivation for being
>>>   here etc..

>>Well, that's something internal to the group in question, not
>>external.  Are you finally admitting that some of America's racial
>>problems are not linked to current racism?

>       Another weak one. Without EXTERNAL acceptance or tolerance it matters not
>     how smart,how much ability etc.. That is the whole point.

What's the whole point?  Where does motivation come in?

>>>If you can't use a token throw the "model minority at us ,eh?

>>I'll throw anything I have to to convince you that things are not
>>nearly as simple as you seem to think.

>       I have never thought things are at all simple. Racism is a durable
>       complex well-oiled machine. YOU are the one who seems to think things
>       are simple, "Just get an education and work hard and things will come
>       your way regardless of the obstacles".

Over time?  Definitely.  Just look at the Orientals.  Anyone who
claims that they are racially inferior makes himself look stupid, not
them.  Why?  Becasue it is clearly and obviously counterfactual.

>>>>>      When I go
>>>>>      to a store or a restaurant and still get "the look" I can understand
>>>>>      why.

>>>>You'll get the look as long as crime and poverty are
>>>>disproportionately black.  These are chicken and egg problems.  The
>>>>only way to beat them is to work on both at once.

>>>>--  No, it's a cause and effect relationship and you'll never understand it.

>>So which is the cause and which is the effect?

>      Whew...after all I've written you still don't know then..all is lost.

I think you missed my point.  I know which you think is the cause and
which you think is the effect, but have you ever considered asking the
restauranteur which way round he thinks it is?

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american