X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 29 Dec 1992 11:46:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>
Subject: Re: more responses to andy f.'s comments
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>

> >> So what?  They're being PAID for accepting that risk.
> >
> >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.

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 nearly every worker is subject to discharge without
cause, under some circumstances.

> >Huge fraction?  Exactly how huge?  Most businesses are props or
> >partnerships, but most jobs are from corporations.  And lots of small
> >businesses are corportations, too.
>
> 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
mind, even though the purpose of corporations is to limit the risk
faced by investors to the amount of their investments, while proprietors
may stand the chance of losing personal assets if they are needed to
satisfy business debts.

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.

> >Actually, the quality of a firm's workforce is a very relevant question
> >to an investor.  Why should it make so much difference how business
> >decisions are made, as long as the decisions are good ones?  Unless,
> >of course, you think people in general are idiots and only dictatorships
> >work.
>
> Good ones 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.

> Given some saved money, I can either consume it or invest it.  If I'm
> not going to get a return, which is a nice way to say "good decisions
> from my point of view", I'm going to consume it.
>
> 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.  What makes Andy
think that some kinds of risk-taking entitle you to control while others
do not?

Must be a class thing.

Best,
Peter

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