X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:02:59 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: more responses to andy f.'s comments

[much stuff mercifully deleted]

>>You think that productivity is "more stuff, lower costs?" Or are
>>you just obfuscating?

>Actually it is.

>>Productivity (individual worker output) increased

>See what I mean.  "Output" = "stuff", "worker" = cost.

Nope, you're only half right, productivity = "stuff"/man hour,
cost is affected by productivity; your tail is wagging your dog.


>>while real wages decreased in the 80's. Also the size of the workforce
>>decreased since less workers provided more output.

>So?  That doesn't imply that the "workers" are responsible for
>the productivity increase.

Only in andy-land; if you want to argue that a jockey putting a
whip to a horse is the absolute cause of a horse winning a race,
then go ahead, but it sure would change the art of breeding horses
if that were the truth.

>Suppose management figures out how to produce cars with janitors, a
>few programmers, and a few robot supervisors.

More power to them. B)

> The key personnel are
>the robot personnel and there are lots of janitors.  Precisely why
>should the janitors in that industry make more than janitors in other
>industries?

Depends on their relative duties and work output. If the janitors
who work for me double their work output allowing me to double (or
more) my profit, then I should double their pay, all things being
equal.

> The alternative is that the robot supervisors won't make
>all that much, even though they're the ones who make $1000 cars
>possible.

Then perhaps management is selling their product too cheaply, taking
advantage of the robot supervisors to obtain market share, perhaps
there are too many managers or they are paid too much.


>>Your argument, however is completely irrelevant; if either of the
>>two managers in your example invest money in their company, it does
>>not increase their salary.

>No, it's quite relevant.  The poor manager doesn't have money to
>invest.  Given a cap on salary, stock participation is the only way
>for her to benefit from his skill.

Despite your insistance, I did not advocate a cap on salaries,
is your comprehension of language that poor?

If I have two students applying for a position working for me, one
comes from a wealthy family and has investments and the other comes
from the ghetto, should I offer the wealthy one a lower salary for
the same work?

If two stockholders in my company are applying for a position should
I offer the one with the greater investment a lower salary for the
same job because they may profit more from their skill?

Why is andy f. so concerned with the distortions of equality created
by wealth at the upper end of the income spectrum and so unconcerned
with the same phenomena at the lower end?

>Why does O'Andy think that poor managers shouldn't get what they're
>worth?

I think everybody should get what they're worth, that's why we
disagree so frequently. B)


>O'Andy confuses "doing the best with what they've got" with "doing
>well".  If we decided to execute CEOs every couple years, companies
>would "adjust", but that doesn't mean that that policy is "good".
>Does O'Andy really think that crippling the Golden Goose is fine as
>long as you don't kill it?

o'Andy thinks that removing some of the golden eggs from the basket
before the ogre gets them won't hurt the goose, further the goose
may be a bit more comfortable not having to sit on all of those
eggs.



[lots more stuff mercifully deleted]

>>I want it to offset its share of the costs of educating and training
>>the work force, building and maintaining the infrastructure,
>>government services that it receives.

>Really?  That's ALL O'Andy wants from GM.  If so, he owes it a refund.

>First of all, GM pays for all of its training and then some.  It
>compensates workers enough to pay for their general education and then
>does the rest in-house.

Oh? Where is GM K-12? Where is the GM interstate system, health
care system...


>>What I was noting is that one of the prime reasons for the outrageous
>>growth of corporate debt is the rewritten rules (1978) regarding
>>chapter 11, which make "failure" less of a bogeyman than it used
>>to be for managers... they can drive their company into bankruptcy
>>and keep their jobs now.

>Really?  How much salary do bankrupt companies pay?

Quite a bit if you happen to be in management, in some companies
you can keep receiving bonuses if you're in top management even
if your company continues going down the tubes.

If you're not in top management the picture isn't so bright...

>-andy

-other Andy