Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    I didn't like the "I'm a jerk" note and I don't like this one.  If you
    have a problem with individuals who have called you naive, handle it
    off-line.
    
    - M

    RE: .1 I too did not like the jerk note and find this one equally
    	pointless. 

    In an effort to Value your difference, it doesn't bother me if the
    notes you write are not of interest to me.  If they aren't I'll
    skip over them.  Don't feel that you should write unless you personally
    offend someone else directly or indirectly.
    
    My opinion of being naive is that we can admit to not knowing something
    and ask to learn. Or admit to know know it and pretend.  Asking
    to learn, even if you forget shows you have the desire to learn,
    which, at least for me deserves a lot of respect.  Remember, other
    people label you naive.  It may serve other people to remember that
    no one knows everything!  A little humility can also prevent labels
    such as this, or at least give you the ability to cope with them.

    Rik, they're just jealous. Don't let them get to you, they're just
    trying to get your goat.

    just because I don't agree with you doesn't make me niave or you
    right :-)

    RE: .0
    
    I wonder if this note also got entered in SOAPBOX, WOMENOTES....
    
    I don't know about your being a jerk or being naive, but you're
    certainly a whiner. See note on whining, previously entered in
    this Conference.
    
    BTW, at this point, who cares if Lorna loves you?
    
      Alan
                                                     

    
    
    it's been 23 hours since i posted .0 and i still haven't recieved
    any mail from a moderator and the note hasn't been deleted/writelocked.
    
    guess i can't accuse anyone here of censorship.
    

This conference is nothing short of amazing. 

Here's a guy who proclaims to the whole world that he is considered
a jerk. On his own admission, he knows what's good for you, better
than you do, and tells you so. He's so smart, he could teach dad how
to make children and a chicken how to lay eggs. 

So what do all the you good, supportive, people do? You tell him
that NO! he is not a jerk. Foolish, maybe; naive, maybe; but, a jerk
- no! 

So, the same guy now proclaims to the whole world that he's
considered naive. On his own admission, he finds love, marriage,
patriotism and a host of other humane and noble emotions that he
has obviously failed to personally experience - naive. 

So what do all the you good, supportive, people do? You tell him
that NO! he is not naive. He's just a jerk. 

This conference is nothing short of amazing. 

-- Ron 

    RE: .11
    
    Remember the children's book "The Little Engine That Could"?
    
    The message there was that if someone tried hard enough, he or
    she could be anything they wanted to be.
    
    I think the author of the base note just possibly may have
    succeeded in his efforts to prove his point.
    
    I'm no longer going to argue with any of his premises. 
    
    He's right!
    
      Alan
    

    Is he a jerk or naive...I don't know but I do know there is a long
    way between theory and practice.
    
    Communism sounds terrific on paper.

    
    
    RE: 12
    
      You're right of course, if after intense self analysis, the author
    has decided that he's a naive jerk who are we to argue?  More power
    to him, the man who knows himself knows where he's going.
    

    
    	Joe Jas thinks it's great! That is, people are *saying* what
    they *feel* - without worrying too much about getting their palms
    slapped by "the moderators" or "the readers". Hmmmm, wonder why
    Pink Floyd's "The Wall" album was banned in South Africa - could
    it be "they" didnt want anyone to hear all_those disdainful remarks?
    My Lord, such thinking *should* be banned, right?
    
    	And the first 5 replys were real entertaining! Sheesh, just
    go look in the magazine racks of any tobacco store - you'll probably
    find *something* you dont like...As long as it's not in *your* town
    right?
    
    	Right? 

    Re .0, I think that the only way in which you are naive is in not
    realizing that it is a waste of time to expect a bunch of
    self-satisfied yuppies to be interested in changing the world or
    questioning tradition.  
    
    Lorna
    

    <--(.16)
    
    I'm with you, Lorna.
    						=maggie

    
    re: 16 and 18
    i'll agree with that.
    
    but it's nice to know that i'm intellectually and emotionally
    superior to so many college educated w.c.4 yuppie puppets.
    
    gives me a warm fuzzy feeling inside.
    
    and the opinions of those who only repeat what they've been taught/told
    are worthless and meaningless.
    
    

    
    gee....let's see...
    
    i could listen to....ghandi, bobby kennedy, emerson, thoreau, lincoln
    sun yat sen, a thousand poets, jackson browne, rev king, h.g. wells...
    
    or i could listen to typical noters who'll die with the same opinions
    that they had when they were 18...opinions that are not their own
    but were handed to them by society and their parents...
    
    a difficult choice...
    

    I promised myself I would keep out of all this crap, BUT ...
    
    sure sounds like 'my group is better than your group' to me.
    This is a very human tendancy. How many of you haven't felt
    superior to some other group of people at one time or another?
    For example:
    
                          are better than
                          are better than
    managers					individual contributors
    people with degrees				people without degrees
    people with masters				people with bachelors
    degrees					degrees
    people with kids				people without kids
    jazz musicians   				rock musicians
    religious people                            non-religious people
    
    and on a larger scale
    
    whites					blacks
    christians					jews
    jews					moslems
    americans					russians
    
    and for each of these groups, there is a group who feels the
    exact opposite way. It's a very human thing to do.
    
    What evidence do you have to show that 'self-satisfied yuppies'
    have never read Thoreau, Ghandi, the Bible, or even (heaven forbid)
    Jackson Browne? What evidence do you have that these people have
    the same opinions they had when they were 18? You're making CRASS
    generalizations here. Self-satisfied yuppies are happy with their
    lifestyle. You're happy with yours. As long as neither of you infringes
    on the other's happiness, what's the problem? You've each made your
    choices. I really get riled when I see this kind of "we're BETTER
    than those people over there" behavior. It's the basis for many
    of the conflicts in the world today.
    
    -Dave

	let's see.
	we're in america
	self proclaimed "greatest country in the universe"

	i'm the bad guy.
	and you're the good guys.

	i guess i have the black hat and you have the white ones.

	as the enemy of this great country i...
	1. want to make things better for all people (except you, now)
	2. care about the down trodden
		there's a statue in new york that has some words written
on it about "send us your poor and destitute...."
		if you people have your way the statue will either be
destroyed or the finishing sentence will be..."so we can keep them
poor and destitute".
	
	as the good guys you
	1. don't wanta do anything for anyone but yourselves
	2. care about noone but yourselves and your immediate family

	i gotta admit, with opinions like yours you sure do qualify
as good guys.
	and with opinions like mine i'm sure one of the bad guys.
	

	yes, please, send us those poor and downtrodden...
	we need more underpaid people to live in squalor...
	how else may we judge our own success unless at the destitute
failures of others?

	

    Re .22, I don't think you and I are talking about the same things.
     I mentioned "self-satisfied yuppies."  I didn't say anything about
    "self-righteous".  .0 is the one who mentioned Thoreau, Ghandi,
    etc.
    
    I don't see this as an issue of one group thinking they are better
    than another group, and I don't see this as an issue of people making
    choices as to a way of life.  If you selected the lifestyle that
    you now have, and you are completely happy, and you have attained
    all of your aspirations then I think you are very lucky.  One issue,
    I believe, is that everyone - even in America - is not free to just
    make a choice as to lifestyle and then follow-through on it.  It
    might not have been as easy if you were a woman.  It might not have
    been as easy if you had been born to parents of below poverty level
    incomes.  It might not have been as easy if, try as you might, you
    couldn't achieve high enough grades, or get enough money to go to
    college.  The mere fact that you view life as a simple matter of
    choosing a lifestyle shows me that you have little idea how tough
    living can still be for certain people not as fortunate as yourself.
    
    I believe there are still many areas where the United States can
    improve, as far as women's rights, as far as more even distribution
    of wealth, as far as fairer laws.  I believe that everyone who works
    a 40 hr. week should earn enough money to be able to rent a one
    bedroom apartment and make a car payment.  I believe that elderly
    widows should get enough social security to pay their heating bills,
    and buy groceries.  I don't think anybody should be living on the
    street in the United States.  
    
    I also, unfortunately, believe that there are a great many young
    adults today, with college degrees, high paying jobs, who are happy
    buying their homes, their CD's, their VCR's, and not concerned with
    helping those who, usually through no fault of their own, are less
    fortunate.
    
    Lorna
    

    Gee, Lorna, I guess you still do love him.
    
    Perhaps if: the basenote author expressed himself in sentences and
    paragraphs rather than verses beginning with the stylized "i" as
    a pronoun instead of "I"; stopped his damned whining and self-
    deprecation --- and learned that it's hard to take somebody seriously
    who begins his diatribes by stating up-front that he's a jerk, then,
    perhaps, he may begin to get people to listen. 
    
    Not necessarily agree, but at least listen. That's more than he's
    getting many people to do now. As Marshall McLuhan once said about TV,
    "The medium is the message". If Rik is serious about getting his
    message across and taken seriously, he should be aware of the 
    negative impact his style has on his audience.
    
    I know *I* tune out what he is saying because of it. He may, indeed,
    have valid things to say, but each time I see one of his pieces,
    the only thought that hits me is that he's just trying to get
    attention to himself, not his causes. If he really wants to help
    effect changes in our society, perhaps he should consider this.
    
       Alan
     

    
    It's been a couple of days since I read the base note, but a couple
    of things stick in my mind...
    
    First of all the noter should open a new topic titled "insulting"
    because he certainly is that too.
    
    I for one believe in God. I'm not knocking atheists but am insulted
    by the treatment of other peoples believes by the noter.
    
    (to believe God can be held responsible for man's mis-achievments
     is trully niave)
    
    I'm insulted by the sterotyping of college graduates (even those
    of us that can't spell). A college degree doesn't mean you know
    everything, and my engineering degree had little impact on my 
    theological views of the world.
    
    my two cents.. 

    
    Anyone who draws conclusions regarding the attitudes and beliefs
    of a societal subset based on the method by which said subset receives
    their pay is as much a BIGOT as the person who draws conclusions
    based on skin color, sex or ethnic origin.
                  
                  
    Edd,
    W.C. 4,
    Ex-Bank Officer,
    Anti Union,
    Rock Musician
    
    

    RE:. 28	Why shouldn't people be defensive or offended by
    		blanket insults. I suppose phrases like 
    		"self satisfied yuppies" or 
    		"I used to have respect for these fools"
    		are there to encourage discussion. Right!
    
    	I for one am really surprised to see this sort of thing in 
    	this conference. I must have had the wrong impressions, but
    	I thought that this conference encouraged respect, tolerance
    	and sincere discussion of issues of human relations. 

    re .27, sorry for my .28, Edd, but I couldn't resist due to your
    personal name :-).  I for one wasn't talking about how you got your
    *money*, but rather what values you have, and how you feel about
    the people on earth who are less fortunate than you are.
    
    Re .29, Well, I'm not going to speak for .0, personally I didn't
    call anybody a fool.  But, if you are insulted by hearing someone
    call somebody else "a self-satisfied yuppie" and you immediately
    assume that person is talking about you.  Well, then, maybe you
    should examine your conscience.
    
    As for being surprised to see a topic of this type in this file,
    yes so am I!  More typical fare would be something such as, What
    type of deodorant do you like best???  I like ban.  or Gee, sometimes
    I feel so lonely!  What the heck can I do?  or how about Could *you*
    be tempted to commit adultery???  or What type of fingernails do
    you like best on a woman?  Short? Long? Polished?  and other such
    earth shaking insights into humankind.
    
    Lorna
     

    RE: 30
    
    Topics on divorce, adultery, love, jealousy are appropriate in
    this Conference. I think a treatise (a rather illiterate 
    one at that, demonstrated by .0) on the "evils" of Capitalism 
    is not.
    
    The author usually tries to put stuff like this in SOAPBOX and
    WOMENOTES. He is treated far less kindly in those Conferences.
    People here have been far more tolerant so far, but there is a 
    limit.
    
    I don't recall your commenting on the author in WOMENOTES whose
    topic was on "What to Use to Clean Fiberglass Bathtubs". Why are
    you so down on discussing deodorants in this Conference?
    
       Alan
    
    

    
    RE: .30 Just to clarify, "I" didn't automatically assume the person
    	was referring to me. I just don't like blanket insults! Makes
    	things hard to discuss.

    re .31, No, I didn't comment on how to clean fiberglass bathtubs
    in Womannotes.  I, personally, found the topic too boring to bother
    with.  I just can't get excited about talking about cleaning bathtubs.
     But, most of the topics in Womannotes are far more interesting
    to me.  I used the deodorant sample (I made it up, don't tell me
    there really *is* a topic on deodorants here!) just as an example
    of a banal note topic, of which I think there are a few too many
    in this file.
    
    Lorna
    

    A rock that sits on the ledge will do a lot of damage when the ledge
    is undermined with erosion. All the upright values of the founding
    fathers has to be amended before it can be applied today. I want
    to have all the traditions of [culture, religion, government, ethnic]
    but some of those values just doesn't fit any more. 
    
    Hopefully taht collectively, we can effect a change that will
    cercumvent the erosion of our society.
    
    /cal

RE: .24

Nice Note Lorna...  It's hard to fight your way up to WC4, and have it pulled
out from under you...

Jim.

RE.24
>        I also, unfortunately, believe that there are a great many young
>    adults today, with college degrees, high paying jobs, who are happy
>    buying their homes, their CD's, their VCR's, and not concerned with
>    helping those who, usually through no fault of their own, are less
>    fortunate.


    Forgive me if I'm missing something, but if you pay taxes aren't
    you by default helping those less fortunate than yourself (we are
    a welfare state, aren't we?)
    
    Now if our contry chooses to spend the $$ on bombs, them maybe this
    country as a whole has a problem...  I wouldn't come down on people
    for enjoying the fruits of thier labors, thats what the profit motive
    that makes this nation tick is all about.  Ever been to East Germany?
    Now there are some people that share the wealth!  They also want
    deperately to live in some other country...
    
    I happened to live like a dog for 4 years to get through school
    (payed my own way, with the help of the military, and you can bet
    they got their piece of me), and I certainly don't see any reason to 
    give my money to people who haven't earned it.  In fact, College
    was the most miserrable period of my life...  why would I put myself
    through it to see the reward of it 'redistributed' to the 'less
    fortunate'... (at least any more than they tax me, which is quite
    a lot!!)
    
    Mike who_doesn't_even_have_cable_let_alone_all_that_other_crap M.

RE: .36

I sympathize with you...  If you've slaved for quite a while to get to a certain
position, it's nice to be able to relax and "enjoy the fruits of your labor", as
you say.

Yet... 

Somehow, I get no charitable feeling out of paying taxes for welfare.  I do not
consider it helping out those less fortunate, because I don't think it really
helps.  I don't feel 'redistribution of wealth to those less fortunate' is
charity either.  Some would have you think that such a redistribution is a
right;  charity is not a *right* to be recieved. 

Every man-jack should be able to pull their weight in life.  Those who can't at
present should be assisted to the point where they can.  Those who have a
surplus should feel not the obligation, but the want to help those less
fortunate *when* it is helpfull.

I also have to disagree that it's "the profit motive that makes this nation
tick".  It least it is not so for me, and I like to think it is not so for
others.  This country was not started for profits, it was started on principles.

BTW, FWIW, I have no cable, etc, either.

Jim.

    >  This country was not started for profits, it was started on principles.

    I hate to be an ass...  but wasn't it Plymouth Colony that almost folded
    because it's 'principled' founders were out looking for gold instead
    of prepping for the coming winter?
    
    When did our forebears become tired of being Englishmen?  When they
    percieved they were being TAXED unfairly!  (kinda sounds like they
    were protecting their wallets to me)
    
    Why do socialist/communist economies tend not to work? (for the
    most part)  Because nobody has any INCENTIVE to succeed.  Look at
    the progress China is making in individual quality of life... (by
    western standards anyway, but WTH, they seem to like it)

    I guess I might have more sympathy when I get to the point when I
    know for certain what I'm eating next week!
    
    As for welfare not helping, then I want my damn tax $$ back, when
    I think of all the money our goverment just loses, .......
    
    BTW, how in the heck do people afford to live in Massachuetts????
    
    Mike i_haven't_figured_it_out Moser
    

    Re. 38, a few more:
    
    Rik seems to have a hard time with the profit motive. All landlords
    are bastards because they are out to make a profit from the rent
    they collect from their tenents, etc. You know the mindset.
    
    I have a question for all of you magnanimous people who want to
    'Help the less fortunate':
    
    How much do you do NOW to help the less fortunate? Do you give to
    charity? Do you do volunteer work in the community? Or do you 
    (specifically Lorna, whose definition of 'less fortunate' includes
    those who couldn't hack engineering school) think that YOU are also
    'less fortunate'? Does this mean that YOU are entitled to some of
    MY money? No way. It's like the Dead song ...
    
    "we can share what we got of yours,
     cause we done shared all of mine"
    
    -Dave

    Re .39, I can't understand your anger in regard to these issues.
     I suppose in some ways I do consider myself to be "less fortunate",
    but in other ways I consider myself to be very fortunate.  Of course
    everything is relative - some people are millionaires, some people
    are earning $40K a year, some are earning $18K a year, and some
    are going to be huddled in doorways this winter because they don't
    earn anything.  Also, there are other ways to measure fortune besides
    financially.
    
    You can be certain that I don't want any of your precious money
    right out of your DEC pay stub.  As to being able to "hack engineering
    school", not everyone can and not everyone wants to.  But, one might
    have wished to have been able to "hack" high school math and science
    a bit more, in the hopes that one might have been able to "hack"
    some sort of higher education - preferably something far from the
    dismal boredom (my opinion!) of anything technical.

    I simply believe that for each person you find in any given
    "unfortunate" situation, there are individual reasons why that person
    is in that situation, and it usually is not because the person is
    lazy scum.
    
    Just because I would like to see clerical workers, computer operators
    and others paid high wages does not mean I want to take anything
    from your pocket - perhaps Lee Iaccoca's (for example) but not yours.
    
    Since you want to quote rock'n'roll, I was at a Tom Petty concert
    this summer.  He started off one set by saying, "America's a good
    place, but it could be a lot better."  In a way that's all I'm saying
    and all Rik's saying, too.  They cheered Tom when he said it.  I
    guess you have to sell a few million records before you can get
    people to respect your political views.
    
    Lorna
    

    RE: .40
    
    I'm confused by your statement that if a person were better
    at "hacking" math and science in high school, then he or she
    wouldn't be stuck in a technical environment later in life.
    
    It seems to me that someone who *was* good in math and science
    *would* migrate towards a technical career.
    
    I'm not disputing Tom Petty's remarks that America could be a
    better place to live. I think most Americans recognize some of
    the injustices, both economic and social, that are still a part
    of our society.
    
    It's not necessarily Rik's philosophies that turn a lot of people
    off to his message. It's his whining that turns *me* off.
    
       Alan
    

    Re .41, Alan, I certainly seem to have a difficult time communicating
    what I mean to you!  What I meant about "hacking" math and science
    is this.  I was refering to another noter (I think Dave Clark) saying
    something about some people not being able to "hack engineering
    school", and therefore as I interpreted it not making a high salary
    now.  What I was trying to say is that some people really *can't*
    hack engineering school - through no fault of their own they just
    don't do well in technical (math or science) subjects.  I also made
    the point that some people are not interested in engineering regardless
    of their academic abilities.  To me it sounded like he was saying,
    well if you couldn't hack engineering school like he did then you
    deserve to be making shit pay.  Maybe he didn't mean it that way,
    but it sounded that way to me.
    
    I then went on to say that I am not interested in
    technical/engineering/math/science subjects so that even if I were
    to go to college I would not have studied those subjects.  However,
    if I had done better in those subjects in high school I would have
    been able to have gone to college and then studied what I wanted
    to study - which would have been something in liberal arts.
    
    You see, I have no idea how old you are or where you grew up, but
    when I graduated from high school in 1967, in Massachusetts, they
    told us that you had to have 2 years of "college" math to get into
    college.  This meant Alegra I and II, Geometry and Trig.  I wanted
    to go to college to study English Lit. but since I flunked both
    Algebra and Geometry I couldn't get into college, even though I
    had always gotten A's and B's in College Prep. English in high school.
     So that's what I was talking about Alan.
    
    Does that make any sense to you at all?
    
    I never said that people good at math and science wouldn't be stuck
    in technical environment and understand that they would probably
    even like it.  I was saying that if I could have at least passed
    math I could have then been allowed to study what I wanted to study.
     
    I think I'm writing English!  I don't know any other language!
    
    Lorna
    

    .1 and .8, I'm with you.
    
    .0, how about knocking off the whining, and DO something?!  And
    don't tell me you "can't"--there is ALWAYS a choice.
    
    Jane

>        college.  This meant Alegra I and II, Geometry and Trig.  I wanted
>    to go to college to study English Lit. but since I flunked both
>    Algebra and Geometry I couldn't get into college, even though I
>    had always gotten A's and B's in College Prep. English in high school.
>     So that's what I was talking about Alan.
>    
>    Does that make any sense to you at all?

    Hating to butt in...  
    
    but it makes no sense to me!  Did you ever try a COMMUNITY college?
    I can't speak for your state, but in Illinois all they require for
    entrance is a pulse...  And if you where deficient in a subject
    area they would tutor you!  It's also a HELLUVA lot cheaper in cost!!!
    (Not to mention you could probably have lived at home)
    I suggest you not be so picky in choice of a school.

    mike 

    what i have gotten out of reading riks note was that it seems to
    him that he is the only one out there that wants a better world
    to live in.
    everybody i know is naive in some aspect or some of their thinking
    about life. the other side of the coin everyone is cynical(sp?)
    about some aspect of their life or the world at large.
    until rik learns not to be so cynical(sp?) about people in general
    maybe he should concentrate on improving himself first.
    
    god,i hate to sound sooo hard on him,cuz i think he does raise a
    good issue.
    now what was it that maslow said about needs...
    kelly

    re. 44, I applied to Quinsigamond Community College in Worcester,
    Mass., at the time of my high school graduation but was only accepted
    for their two year secretarial program.  I was interested in studying
    English Lit. 
    
    With all the colleges available in Massachusetts, I don't think
    choosing Quinsigamond was being exactly picky.  I know a couple
    of technical males here at DEC who don't even mention that they
    went to college in conversations because having to admit you commuted
    to Quinsig while the guy next to you went to MIT is, well, a little
    bit embarrassing.
    
    I would have been happy with 4 years of liberal arts at U Mass but
    they wouldn't have me.
    
    Lorna
    

    well, rik can be offensive at times because while he's expressing
    his ideas, he is very busy putting down everybody who disagrees
    with him.  It is just one more type of intellectual snobbery --
    to say that _I_ am enlightened, _I_ understand the way things _really_
    are and you must be pond scum (selfish, over-privileged,
    under-intelligent, etc) to disagree.
    
    This is a drag, because I agree with a lot of what he says.  If
    he'd make an effort to listen more carefully, then his arguments
    would be better tuned to his listeners, and he'd encounter a lot
    less hostility.
    
    We've all had it rough, even those who went to MIT.  Even those
    born with a bank account over $1G.  Your worth has little to do
    with your education or your financial endowment, although those
    things do certainly help.

    Lee

Re. 47
    
>    re. 44, I applied to Quinsigamond Community College in Worcester,
>    Mass., at the time of my high school graduation but was only accepted
>    for their two year secretarial program.  I was interested in studying
>    English Lit. 

    Hmmm...  Like I said, I only know about Illinois....
    Here (actually there, I work in MA now), the concept is that a
    community college is a place to make up for the deficiencies in
    the many rural high schools,  you generally spend two years or more
    getting lots of help in subjects you might have missed and then
    transferring up to a four year university to finish out.  They also
    ran a lot of night courses and vocational type classes.  It seems
    very unfair to me that you could not get in to any state school
    somewhere, even if it be a community college...  You should check
    into your state laws and see if it is legal to deny a state resident
    the opportunity to a college education (in a state supported
    institution of course!) in at least a two year school
    in the field of their choice!   

    Mike who_flunked_algebra_and_had_to_take_a_LLCC_class_to_get_into_UI
    
    LLCC = Losers Last-chance Community College! (good school in its
    own right by the way)

    re .47, .49:
    
    As .49 says, I believed that one of the functions of a community
    college is to provide remedial help for those who need it so that
    they can go on to 'real' colleges and college courses.  But, I only
    know about Colorado, Florida, Illinois, and have heard about Alabama.
    Many of the people who go to these schools have been out of school
    for a long time, and may have dropped out of a rural school at an
    early age, and later got a GED.  Still, they have very little formal
    educational background (Trigonometry, etc.).  These schools are
    supposedly there to help them.  You seem to have prepared a little
    better than some people I've seen and seen do well in a Community
    College.
    
    If it was impossible for you to get into any Mass. school, you *could*
    have moved to a different state where they are more reasonable.
    It may have been difficult for you to get a college education, but
    not impossible.
    
    Elizabeth

    Although I might not like the way the author of .0 expresses his
    ideas....no I guess what I mean is I am not crazy about all his
    philosophies I have to say we miss the point continually when we
    discuss this issue.
    
    We *need* secretaries, computer operators, sales clerks, waitpersons.
    The H_R - Womannotes - Mennotes community is top heavy with
    professional people and there answer is always --
    
              'You can do it, you can be just like me'
    
    Not everyone wants to be an achiever, some people want to be average.
    Kate and Allie had a show two weeks ago about being average.  What
    is wrong with it?  
    
    And rik is right we in America have to do something...his answer
    seems to be to give the secretary more money.  I am not sure that
    is going to work.  
    
    Lorna's statement is one to which I subscribe.  Every person who
    works deserves to have a one bedroom apartment and reliable
    transportation.  Not once have I heard either rik or Lorna suggest
    that the secretary live in the same neighborhood or drive a BMW
    as many Yuppies do.  They simply say that work should equate with
    housing and transportation.  Does anyone really disagree with that?
    
    And if you do disagree what do you propose for the people who have
    these jobs?
    
    The answer always comes back from this community to go to
    college...become something....but what would the professional person
    do if they did not have a secretary, or could not go out to eat,
    or there was not someone manning these computers 24 hours.
    
    We never answer the real question!

    .52
    
    What is your point?  The worker's income should be adequate for
    the rental of an apartment and for the care and maintenance of
    transportation.
    
    Or there should be a means to control the cost of housing especially
    so that workers might have a decent home.
    
    FACT:  A person earning $18,000 a year cannot afford a one-bedroom
           apartment in the major areas around DEC.
    

    This is not soapbox this is human_relations and we have literally
    run a man into the ground because he values these things for
    individuals.  
    
    If I knew what the answer was I would debate it in soapbox.  Or
    I would run for public office.  I know higher salaries will not
    do it...because the landlord is always going to charge as much as
    he can get...and if we give secretaries more than we will have to
    give engineers more....and their are so many engineers and other
    professionals making good money in Massachusetts that it is a
    given that a landlord can get he wants for his apartment.
    
    And I don't approve of rent control either.  I don't know what the
    answer is what I was questioning is the 'answer' that continually
    pops up in this file.  And that is 'go to college, become a
    professional'.
    
    Certain issues can give very predictable replies in this file. 
    And I say that is because the community is largely professional,
    making salaries adequate for housing and transportation.
    
    I think that we tend to hold ourselves above the average person....my
    question has been continually "How are we going to get along without
    the average person".                                           
    
    If everyone has the potential of being an achiever and everyone
    accomplishes that goal that we keep preaching who is going to wait
    on us when we go to the supermarket?
    
    

    re .-1:
    
    who is going to wait on us at the supermarket?
    
    high school kids :-)
    
    But seriously,
    
    There has never been a time in history when people could get by
    with 'just being average'. If you were average in Rome, you were
    a slave. If you were average in Medieval times, you were a pauper
    or a serf. Being 'above average' was largely a function of who 
    your parents were. It is only recently that one could become
    wealthy and powerful just by working at it. There is still a 
    struggle for survival going on, although it is more subtle than
    it used to be. People who are recommending that secretaries go
    to college aren't being overachievers, they're being realists.
    
    I doubt that anybody here will argue the need for care for the
    homeless, the old, and the other segments of our society who
    truly can't help themselves. But forthe rest of the world, 
    "it's a jungle".
    
    -Dave

    Re .50, well, I stopped trying to get into college, or thinking
    about it,  when I got married 15 years ago.  My secretarial pay
    helped out nicely when added to my ex-husband's engineer's pay.
     He got good raises and promotions through the years and we owned
    our own home and had two cars.  Unfortunately, we began to fight
    constantly and fell out of love.  It wasn't until I left a little
    over 2 yrs. ago that I realized how difficult it is to get by as
    a single person in Massachusetts on secretarial pay.  I haven't
    decided exactly what to do about it yet.
    
    As far as moving to another state, which you also suggest in regard
    to my getting into a college back in 1967.  Well, it just seemed
    out of the question to me back then.  My parents were poor, I had
    no money to get an apartment, no money to move, and I was too naive
    for it to even occur to me that the colleges in any other state
    would be different.
    
    Joyce, thanks for understanding.  And, as far as the average versus
    overachiever categories go, it is not as though I was born in an
    upper middle-class family and wound up a secretary.  A person has
    to be really above average in order to pull themselves up out of
    poverty.  When I was born my father (who didn't graduate from high
    school) was working as a janitor and my mother (a high school graduate)
    was a housewife.  Sometimes when I think of my humble beginnings
    I think it's a wonder I'm even working as a secretary at Digital,
    and have the ability to express my thoughts as well as I do in
    notesfiles along with people who have far more education than I
    do.  It's a wonder I'm not some itinerant worker somewhere or a
    bum on skid row.
    
    Lorna
    

    Re .56, and when all the people who are secretaries now go to college
    and get higher paying jobs, other women will be hired to be secretaries
    and then they won't make enough money to live either.  The question,
    Dave, is not how can I get a better job and make more money, the
    question is, what can we as a society do about the fact that a large
    segment of people are not earning enough money to live on?  We need
    secretaries, we need cleaning people, we need cafeteria workers.
     We need people in grocery stores during school hours.  These people
    who are willing to work deserve to make enough money to get by on.
    Average should be enough to get by on.  It was in high school. 
    C was average, C was passing, C was enough to get by.  Above average
    means you deserve more, average means you get by, and below average
    means you might not.  
    
    Sometimes I think it comes down to the fact that you either care
    about what happens to other people or you don't.  If we have so
    many highly educated, above average people out there, then we should
    have enough collective intellect that it doesn't *have* to be a
    "jungle out there".  
    
    My personal opinion is that the reason that it is a "jungle out
    there" is because there are too many greedy, selfish people in the
    world who don't want to share the wealth.  I'm not talking about
    anybody in this file.  I'm not talking about the engineer making
    $45K a year, or the manager making $70K.  I'm talking about corporation
    heads and politicians.  They keep most of the wealth for themselves
    and then give a certain segment of the population just enough to
    keep them content so that they aren't interested in helping those
    that don't have enough.  This way the men at the top make sure that
    they will never be an even distribution of wealth in the world.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .58:
    
    How much of 'the wealth' do these politicians and corporate heads
    control? 20%? 50%? 80%? If you have any data, please share it
    with us. I do remember a few years ago GM lost money only bcause
    the Corporate executives voted themselves such large bonuses.
    That is pure greed. 
    
    No system is perfect. The good side of our system is that you
    can advance yourself as you see fit. The bad side is that 
    the Ivan Boesky's of the world are going to take advantage
    of the system and make millions of dollars with nothing to
    show for their profits.
    
    -Dave

    (NICE replies, Joyce!  As usual)
    
    <--(.59)
    
    My proxy statement says that 44 people at DEC take home a total
    of $10M p.a. in salary.  That's a chunk of change.
    
    
    Not everyone can "advance yourself as you see fit", Dave.  It's a nice
    theory, and very comforting if you're in a position of relative
    advantage because it justifies the status quo.  It implies that the
    privileged deserve their advantages, and those who don't have them
    don't deserve them because they merely chose not to work "hard enough"
    for them.   It ignores all the factors, including random chance, unfair
    discrimination, and plain exploitative greed, that operate to reduce
    an individual's return on the skills they have and energy they expend.
    
    						=maggie

RE: .58

"We need secretaries, we need cleaning people, we need cafeteria workers. We
need people in grocery stores"

Maybe we do in *this* society, the way it is now, but I really dispute that
this *has* to be true...

I really feel that I could get by without cleaning people, and clean up after
myself.  I can cook my own food.  Could I live a life such that nobody need be
subservient for my sake? 

One way that I feel that 'lower' positions could be filled, instead of the
'secretary'/'engineer' class society is for 'apprentices' for the higher jobs to
fill the lower jobs.   What ever happened to apprentices?

Jim.

    Re .62, you say that when you were in college you worked 2 jobs
    to help pay for your tuition.  You then go on to say that that is
    a lot harder than 8 hrs/day as a secretary.  This may be your opinion
    but it is my opinion that you are stating this without enough first
    hand knowledge.  First of all, for 11 years of the time that
    I was a secretary I was also a wife and mother.  I had to go home
    after work and cook supper for 3 people, do laundry for 3 people,
    clean up the dishes, and make sure the house didn't look like a
    pig pen.  Up until the last couple of years of my marriage, I had
    to make sure that my daughter was washed up, and ready for bed.
     In the morning I had to get her up, feed her, dress her and take
    her to my mother's before I left for work.  This was in addition
    to getting myself ready for work - eating breakfast, taking a shower,
    washing and drying my hair and getting dressed.  For a lot of that
    time I lived an hour from my job.  Most of the time I found it
    exhausting to work an 8 hr. day as a secretary (a job I usually
    find so boring it's the equivalent to being paid to wait for a bus
    all day only you don't get to read), drive a 2 hr. commute, plus
    be a wife and a mother.  
    
    And now, even though I don't have a husband I still have a daughter
    who doesn't live with me so I try to plan for quality time with
    her, and I still have to do my laundry, clean my place, and feed
    myself (cause I don't have a wife :-)  ).  Perhaps you have a very
    high energy level, but I find I get tired.  Also, now I live 41
    miles from work and ride a DEC van.  I have to get up at 4:30 in
    the morning in order to catch the DEC van and I don't get home until
    6-6:30.  I really don't know how I would ever find the energy and
    time for college now, especially since it would be my first formal
    education in 20 yrs.
    
    Actually, America does make some guarrantees for the people, too.
     We have social security, welfare, and unemployment.  At one time
    workers had very few rights - no paid vacations, paid sick time,
    paid insurance premiums, legal limits on working hours, guaranteed
    over-time pay for hourly employees.  But, some people took it upon
    themselves to work very hard to make these changes come about. 
    At the time these people were thought to be very radical and dangerous
    and the people who were already well off were against them.  It
    seems to me that maybe this is always the way.  People who point
    out change and/or fight for it are always resents by most of the
    already comfortably off, but then later on future generations will
    be happy to accept the changes the radicals fought for, but will
    still resist any future changes in their lifetime.
    
    Re Jim, I know what you mean about a permanent serving class.  It
    goes against the grain with me, too.  But, you couldn't do away
    with it all at once without providing other jobs for these people.
     I don't really believe in a servant class either, and even if I
    ever became wealthy would have a difficult time justifying the
    existence of servants.  (Kind of like eating meat to me.  I go along
    with it, but I don't really think it's right.)
    
    Lorna
      

    
    .0 was...
    	what do you think is naive...
    	 i listed 10 things that i truly feel are naive...
    
    	please, instead of reaffirming how much you dislike me
    and how little you think of my opinions, can't you just
    state things that you think are naive?
    
    	wouldn't that be sticking to the topic?
    	
    	i'm certainly sorry if anyone feel sthat i insulted them
    by stating that something that they believe in is naive but
    no one seems to think that suggesting i'm naive for my opinions
    is either an insult or something to worry about.
    
    	again, can't you just list things that you think are naive
    without insulting me and my opinions?
    
    	

RE. 58
    The first step is to not live in Massachusetts!  I came here from
    Illinois and I cannot believe the cost of living here.  Who in the
    heck is buying up all the $100K+ houses???  Paying close to $1K
    a year for car insurance, or god knows what for rent.  It's completely
    ridiculous.  In Illinois, there were always crummy areas to move
    into if you were broke!  Here even the dives cost $500-$600 a month
    to rent.  In this state, the free market has gone wild,  I think
    the state ought to step in and restore some kind of sanity.

    Might I ask how the per capita income in Illinois compares to that
    in Massachusetts?
    
    Edd

    I have seen several, somewhat fanciful, proposals that try to deal
    with the problem that certain jobs, very essential to our society,
    pay nowhere near what they are worth to us.  Examples include
    secretaries, teachers and child care professionals, nurses, and
    many other service-industry positions.
    
    One such proposal suggested factoring in the "unpleasntness" aspect
    in the wage scale, so that a sewer worker would get a much higher
    salary than might be given otherwise.  Another factor would be
    how well the people who perform these jobs enable others to be
    productive - certainly secretaries and child-care workers rate
    high in this category.
    
    I say "somewhat fanciful" because, though many people would read
    these and nod their heads in agreement, the our society is not
    organized in such a way to make any sort of formulaic salary
    possible.  Perhaps in a socialistic government it could happen,
    but somehow I doubt it would happen here.
    
    I also disagree with those who feel that we could live without
    the service industry.  Live, in the literal sense, yes, but as
    a society we'd be much worse off.  I'm all for paying people
    what they're worth, and do so whenever I get the opportunity.
    
    				Steve

    < Note 394.67 by JAWS::COTE "Hollywood! I know your middle name!" >
                      -< Money doesn't measure value... >-

    Might I ask how the per capita income in Illinois compares to that
    in Massachusetts?
    
    Edd

------
    
    Exactly the reason I now live in Massachussetts!  My dad didn't
    happen to leave me the family pig farm and I wasn't too hot at welding,
    so It's off to try and make some $$$!
    
    I would guess I'ld lose a couple of thousand a year for the same
    type of work out there (assuming I could find the same type of work,
    not easy in Illinois if you bar defense work), but I have to say, I had
    a lot more left over for groceries at the end of the month back there too!

    
    Mike

    re .60  Maggie, would you like to trade jobs with one of those 44?
    
    re .63 Lorna, where in Mass. is 41 miles from Digital ? :-)
    
    Dana_who_loves_Western_Mass.

Say RIK, may I borrow some of your naivete'?  I've lost a great deal of mine,
and I'd really prefer to have it back...  Life was a lot more pleasurable...

Jim. 

    <--(.70)
    
    I don't know, Dana.  I know the identities and jobs of only those at
    the upper end.  One of the $200K p.a. slots at the bottom of that list
    might suit my skills and interests very well. 
    
    But given the demographics of that group, I'll not hold my breath
    awaiting an invitation to join it.  Energy and intelligence are simply
    insufficient.
    						=maggie

    Re .70, Dana, I moved to Londonderry, N.H., on July 1st.  The house
    we are renting in Londonderry is exactly 41 miles from the lower
    Thompson Parking Lot at the mill in Maynard where I work.  However,
    I was born and grew up in Massachusetts, and lived there until this
    past July.
    
    Lorna_who_loves_Cape_Cod (wish there was a Digital there)
    

    re: .58
    
    An interesting approach, Jim, to suggest the apprentice route as
    a path for "lower" positions to move up the financial ladder.  But
    in the case of secretaries, it wouldn't work because secretaries
    and managers (no matter what type of work the manager/engineer/whatever
    is doing) are not performing the same functions.  A secretary performs
    a staff function, much as a personnel or facilities department does,
    and is there to provide services that are geared to increasing the
    productivity of the people being supported.
    
    As for the "if you want more money, go to college/change jobs" line,
    I get really tired of hearing this.  I did go to college and I don't
    want to change jobs.  I like what I do.  I know how vital my work
    is, but the companies I work for don't recognize that in my paycheck.
    I am NOT complaining, whining or crying discrimination.  This is
    a fact.  
    
    I personally believe that the only way secretarial pay scales will
    rise to a realistic level is when there are too many underskilled
    and undermotivated people in this profession, that those of us who
    are REAL "professionals" will be obvious to everyone and companies
    will use money to attract and keep the best people.  I hope I'm
    not being naive here :-)
    
    This is what appears to be happening in a lot of areas regarding
    pay for teachers -- it's obvious that there are a lot of substandard
    teachers so "merit pay" for the good teachers is being proposed.
    
    Gloria

    re .74 (Gloria)
    
    You realize, that if people who didn't really *want* to be secretaries
    moved on to become managers/engineers/whatever, leaving only those
    who truly like and are well suited for secretarial work, there would
    be a shortage of secretaries, and pay would increase suitably.
    
    Elizabeth
    

RE: .58

Even if the 'apprentices' were assisting someone who was doing different work
then their manager/engineer/* boss, it would 'at least' give them a good
exposure to the work.  How many good secretaries don't know much about their
boss's work? 

Jim.

    Re .76, Not sure it would work in Engineering departments.  If a
    person is not technical there isn't anywhere to go in Engineering.
     I think I'm a good secretary but I must admit I have no idea how
    to design an S-box handle, which is an example of what's going on
    in my department.  Technically oriented people who work in Engineering
    but for some reason, such as no degree, are not engineers, tend
    to be technicians.  If you can figure out that kind of stuff why
    fool around being a secretary when you can be a technician and make
    close to twice as much, or at least a good $12K more a year.  My
    problem is I can't figure out that kind of stuff - technical,
    mechanical, etc.
    
    Re Elizabeth (?), of course now we get back to the fact that
    historically it is much tougher for women to move up in jobs.
    
    Many of us older women who are secretaries went to high school at
    a time when girls were told you can be a secretary, a teacher, a
    nurse, or get married.  We have spent so long in the pink collar
    ghetto that people don't want to trust us with better jobs.  They
    want to leave us right where we are, secretaries making low pay.
     That way we're one group of people (middle-aged secretaries) that
    no white, male college graduate has to ever worry about competing
    with for the goods.  Hopefully, the younger women getting out of
    high school and college today will present some competition, though.
     They've been told a bit more about the way things really are out
    in the world that many of us who grew up in the 50's and 60's.

    Lorna
    

    Sort of related to the issue of lower pay to the "helping" professions,
    does anybody think that football players, for example, are worth
    the kind of money they receive?
    
    So long as someone is willing to pay them what they are asking for,
    I guess it could be construed that they're "worth it".
    
    RE: .77
    
    Lorna, your comment about the type of careers that girls were
    encouraged to pursue as being "suitable" to females is on the money.
    True, when I went to college, there were a few females enrolled
    in Engineering, but if three graduated each year, it was considered
    a lot.
    
    You're wounding me, Lorna, when you use the term "older" to describe  
    yourself. I, too, grew up in the '50's and early '60's. (Maybe "grew 
    up" is not the correct term. Sometimes I wonder if I'll ever grow up!).
    We're not "older"; just "seasoned".
    
      Alan
      

    re.75, Elizabeth, there is a shortage of secretaries now!  
    We have had an opening for an administrative secretary in my department
    since April (just got filled).  We interviewed about six people
    in all that time.  The candidates just are not there, and the ones
    that are available are not that good.  
    
    In this profession, there is more to the low income than pure supply
    and demand economics can explain.
    
    Gloria

    <--(.78)
�   True, when I went to college, there were a few females enrolled
�   in Engineering, but if three graduated each year, it was considered
�   a lot.

    Indeed, Alan.  A 41-year-old friend and colleague of mine was the
    *ONLY* woman in her EE class at Case IT.  And did she ever get a hard
    time because of it!  The toughness she had had to develop first as a
    "DP" in postwar europe and later as an immigrant to america was all
    that saw her through the shabby treatment she received from male
    classmates and professors alike. 
    
    						=maggie

    re: .0  
    
    Is it hard for you to NOT be "naive"?
    
    (answer before continuing)
    
    You have put down all the "faith" items that give people 
    courage, hope, and a love of something greater than themselves.
    
    Reading between your lines, I'd bet you wish you did not have to
    be the most important thing in your universe. I do not mean to mock
    you, but I want to ask this: are you lonely?
    
    You mention "censorship" - if someone censored you, would it serve
    to prove how "naive" they are and therefore how smart you are?
    
    	Rick
    	Merrill