Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 29 Dec 1992 12:15:36 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: more responses to andy f.'s comments

>> >It's amazing what a minimum wage job will stretch to cover.  Risk of
>> >unemployment, risk of long-term health damage. . .
>> >
>> >You must share your budgeting secrets with us someday.
>>
>> It's amazing that Peter assumes every job is minimum wage, especially
>> when the jobs in question aren't.
>
>What assumption?  Are you claiming that minimum wage jobs are NEVER
>subject to layoff, or to health risks?  If you can produce evidence
>to demonstrate that, I'll stand corrected.

No.  I'm claiming that the jobs under discussion weren't; GM's
rivet-heads aren't paid minimum wage.  I'm claiming that not all jobs
subject to layoff or risk are minimum wage.  I didn't introduce wages
because my position doesn't depend on wage.  Peter did.  Does his
position only apply to minimum wage jobs?  If not, then why the
irrational appeal?

>Most people would agree that corporation presidents are adequately
>compensated for accepting the risk of sudden unemployment.  Few would
>agree that minimum wage is an adequate compensation for accepting the
>same risk.

Yet, we can find lots of people who will in fact accept minimum wage
under that condition.  Peter is confusing wishes with horses.

>> So?  I wasn't using "sole proprietorship" as the IRS does, but in the
>> relevant sense, namely "how many owners lose if the biz goes down the
>> toilet".  After all, we're not discussing taxation.
>
>We'll have to remember this when we consider how Andy uses the language.
>So "corporation" == "sole proprietorship" resolves to true in Andy's

Peter is trying to attribute strawmen to me.  He claimed that owners
shouldn't have much control because they didn't have all that much at
risk.  That argument applies only to companies owned by people with
other investments.  Some corporations qualify "on average", but even
then, some of their owners may well have no other investments.  Their
investments may well be all they have.  Yet, Peter thinks they should
be treated just like a pension fund that owns stock in hundreds of
companies.

>My point stands: workers can be expected to assume as much or more risk
>than "owners," yet they are usually not compensated for assuming that
>risk or protected by the law in any significant fashion, and almost
>never have any control over the risk they assume.

They have as much risk as they're willing to agree to.  Why isn't that
enough control to satisfy Peter?  Why is his judgement superior to
theirs?

>> Good [decisions] from whose point of view?
>
>From the point of view of the long term health of the enterprise.  That
>is what makes it a good risk for an investor.

Employees don't have that point of view.

>> I happen to think that we need more investments with high variance,
>> but they won't happen if said investors don't have control.  Peter may
>> well think that we can do well enough with nice safe investments, ones
>> where it doesn't much matter whose point of view we use.
>
>Workers are investors, too.  They also assume risks.

And, they're compensated for them.

>What makes Andy think that some kinds of risk-taking entitle you to
>control while others do not?

Because I trust the parties involved to arrive at the appropriate
balance.

Feel free to negotiate with an owner for control.  I'm not going to
interfere with whatever agreement you reach.  I'm merely saying that
third parties don't have standing in that discussion.

>Must be a class thing.

Only if you assume that workers are drones.  So much for "honor
labor".

-andy
--
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU