Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 13:07:41 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: more responses to andy f.'s comments

>>>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.

Nope; I'm completely right.  "Worker" is measured in man-years,
man-centons, man-hours, what have you.

>>>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.

Huh?  Yes, there are cases where workers are responsible.  However,
correctly assigning "blame" takes more than O'Andy's "productivity
increased".

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

Nope, the janitors do exactly the same sorts of things that janitors
in other biz do.

>> 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.

Huh?  If they charge more, then the salary ratio cap means that even
MORE goes to the owners.  (Why shouldn't more efficient producers get
more market share by dropping prices?  More stuff less money is good
for consumers.)

If this biz pays janitors the same as other biz, the salary ratio
cap becomes a salary cap.  Why does O'andy want to limit the salaries
of people who are incredibly productive?

My advisor is at least 100 times more effective at what he does than I
would be if I tried to do it.  Why shouldn't he get 100 times as much
for doing it as I would?  (Of course, if we set up things as piece-
work, he will.  Is that what O'Andy wants?  Is O'Andy even willing to
allow piece-work payment schemes?)

Note that I can get more by doing other things - that change reduces
the "productivity" differential significantly.  Does O'Andy really
want people to do things they're not all that good at?  (Capping the
benefits associated with doing what they do best is a good way to
accomplish that.)

>>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?

My comprehension of languages is quite good.  I combine it with
a comprehension of algebra.  Unless we IGNORE relative productivity,
a ratio cap is an absolute cap.

Let's go back to the auto factory and compare it to a standard
factory.  Both have janitors.  Since they do the same exact thing in
both factories, we'll assume that they get the same salary.  Given a
salary ratio cap, we have placed an upper limit on management salaries
at both factories.

Now, there may be one way for both factories to escape this trap.
Instead of hiring janitors, they might be able to get away with
contracting out for janitor services.  Will O'Andy allow that?

>>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)

Yet, O'Andy's policies don't work that way.  Given O'Andy's salary
ratio cap, the only way to pay managers in the efficient factory "what
they're worth" is to pay janitors far more than they're worth.

>>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.

O'Andy's definition of "ogre" is somewhat lacking.  Having "more"
doesn't imply that one did something wrong.

>>>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...

GM paid its workers enough to pay for those things.  That's why
they're there.  Of course, GM directly paid for quite a lot of them.
O'Andy's emphasis on the nameplate is somewhat interesting.  I note
that presidents and postmasters have their names on lots of buildings
- does he think that that those individuals paid for them?  (Hmm.  Did
A. Lincoln really build/pay for the school around the corner?)  Does
he think that "govt" paid for them?

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