From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Pessimism
Date: 2 Oct 92 02:09:18 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation
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 <1992Oct1.010832.15538@pslu1.psl.wisc.edu> johnson@offroad.chem.wisc.edu (Arthur Johnson) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.232824.15935@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp  
>(Michael Friedman) writes:
>> In article <1992Sep29.134830.2396@cas.org> cwm54@cas.org writes:

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

>     This is only true if the economic system is absolutely laissez-faire,  
>i.e. all economic frictional coefficients are equal to zero. 

I've never heard the term "economic frictional coefficient" before, so
I'm not sure what you mean.  Are you talking about transaction costs?
As far as being laissez-faire, that is incorrect.  If I have 8
headcount and a job that can maybe be done by eight people if they're
all good then I absolutely need the best people.  How much government
regs there are has no bearing on this.

>In reality,  
>our economic system is subject to a great deal of economic friction,  
>resulting in a huge dissipation of economic energy as waste economic  
>"heat". 

What the heck are

A.  Economic friction, and

B.  Economic "heat"?

>Excess capacity will be utilized _provided_ that everyone holds  
>profit maximization and maximum economic efficiency to be the primary  
>purposes of economic activity. 

Quite possible, but I'm not talking about excess capacity.  I'm
talking about the opposite - when you have just enough capacity or
maybe too little.  In today's business environment with layoffs and
downsizing that's a much more common situation than excess capacity.

>The truth is, many people don't. If an  
>employer is willing to take less profit in exchange for "peace of mind"  
>(say, by hiring a less qualified white worker for reasons of ethnic or  
>religious solidarity), or if an employer is willing to settle for only  
>enough profit to pay him/herself a nice salary and cover expenses, excess  
>capacity will begin to accumulate, 

Er no.  In that case the employer will just not increase capacity to
meet demand.  There will be too little capacity, not too much.

>In an absolute laissez-faire economy, that employer would be  
>driven out of business, of course. But American capitalism is not  
>laissez-faire. Not even close. So racist employers, like Energizer  
>batteries, go on and on and on.... 

Incorrect again.

Laissez-faire is irrelevant to the question of whether economic
pressures will drive racist employers out of business unless

A.  Government regs directly protect racist employers (for example,
"You've got to put blacks in the back of the bus.  You can't set up a
competing line that puts blacks anywhere they want and drive the other
company out of business")

or

B.  Government regs prevent companies from going out of business.

A is no longer the case, and except for really big companies B is not
the case either.

>> >      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.

>     True.

>> 2.  It doesn't reward anybody.

>     Of course it does. It rewards people based on ability _and_ other  
>things. The further the economy deviates from the frictionless ideal, the  
>greater the "other things" loom in importance.

My point is that capitalism doesn't reward people.  People do.  Oracle
reward me for my work, not some nebulous "capitalism".

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

>     Or belonging to a particular ethnic or religious group?

It can, depending on the circumstances.

>> So then what do you [Carlyle] 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.

>     The economic system can't discriminate based on skin color _only_ if  
>the economic system is laissez-faire. But who ever said that American  
>capitalism is laissez-faire?

No one.  However your statement is incorrect.  The econmic system
can;'t discriminate period.  Only people can.  And they can do that in
a laissez-faire economy just as they can in a non-laissez-faire
economy.

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

>     Actually, a lot of black people are. There was an NYT article a  
>couple of days ago that discussed the explosive increase in black business  
>formation over the past twenty years as being one important factor in the  
>growth of the black upper-middle and upper classes. One major reason why  
>this is happening is that many black people feel they aren't getting a  
>fair shake from white employers. 

Really.  I wasn't aware of this.

Does it remind you of any other groups?  Like Koreans, maybe?

That's how you combat racism.  It's really tough to run arround
calling blacks shiftless and stupid when the local dry cleaner and the
local grocery store and the local Dominos are all owned and run by
blacks.  

>> Again, not in growing companies [promotion based on non-ability].

>     Again, only if maximum efficiency and profit maximization are the  
>goals of the organization. But most growing businesses are willing to  
>settle for a less than optimal growth rate, in exchange for other
>things.  

Not the ones that are growing.  Jow Blow with the local grocery store
may be like that, but public corporations that have a growth
philosophy are usually hungrier than that.

>There was this interesting 60 Minutes piece a couple of years back about  
>NYC temporary agencies, all of which had set up this elaborate code system  
>with many major NYC employers that would screen out black office workers,  
>even if they were more qualified than competing white office workers.

Office workers?  I thought it was receptionists and other
high-visibility people.  As I remember it, the codes weren't used for
the regular office workers.

>> >     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.  

>     I'll refrain from commenting about Oracle. It IS generally true that  
>companies that have no respect for black people tend to concentrate them  
>in places like "human resources", "affirmative-action office", and "United  
>Way campaign office", however.

Yes. It is generally true.  Women too.  I have approximately 0 contact
with HR so I don't know whether or not Oracle does it.  It's also kind
of self selecting - there is the perception that if you meet the
criteria you can get into one of those offices and as long as you
don't screw up dramatically you'll get regular raises and promotions
while never being responsible for anything more important than the
annual paper clip census.  If you're not very good it's a nice place
to be.  Of course it's also the kiss of death for your remaining
career if you do want to make something of yourself.

Let's add that the bit about AA offices isn't usually the fault of the
companies.  If they don't have a black running it it is often
considered prima facie evidence of racism, so they have little choice.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.